Transcript Why did the *Grand Alliance* Breakdown?

Why did the ‘Grand Alliance’
Breakdown?
L/O – To identify how disagreements arising from the Second World
War led to the Cold War
Why did the Grand Alliance breakdown?
• In 1941 Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union and along with
Japan, declared war on the USA.
• Despite their long-term differences, the USSR, UK and USA
formed a military alliance – the ‘Grand Alliance’.
• Suspicions remained throughout the war. They met at three
conferences during the war: Tehran in 1943, and Yalta and
Potsdam in 1945.
• Disagreements emerged over Germany, Poland and Eastern
Europe, Economic reconstruction and nuclear weapons – after
the war, these problems remained unresolved.
• By 1946, the Grand Alliance had broken down completely.
Formation of the Grand Alliance
• In June 1941, Nazi Germany launched
‘Operation Barbarossa’ – the invasion of the
Soviet Union. Britain and the USA
immediately began supplying the USSR.
• However the USA was not involved in the
war at this time. In August 1941, Winston
Churchill secretly met with US President
Franklin Roosevelt. Churchill was hoping to
persuade the USA to join the war.
• Instead, they agreed on a policy statement
than became known as the ‘Atlantic
Charter’.
Formation of the Grand Alliance
• The eight-principles of the Atlantic Charter
defined the Allied goals for the post-war
world, presenting the unity of Britain and
the USA.
• In September 1941, the Soviet Union and
other countries fighting Nazism agreed to
the principles set out in the Charter however this was not a formal alliance.
• This changed in December 1941. Japan
and Germany declared war on the USA,
bringing America into the conflict.
Formation of the Grand Alliance
• By January 1942, the Allies issued a joint
‘Declaration by United Nations’ – this military
union between the USA, UK and USSR became
known as the ‘Grand Alliance’.
• It was essentially a ‘marriage of convenience’ as
all three had a common enemy. But it had shaky
foundations – it united the world’s greatest
capitalist state, the greatest communist state
and the greatest colonial power.
• Churchill retained his dislike of Stalin, remarking:
‘If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a
favourable reference to the Devil in the House of
Commons’.
Wartime Disagreements
• 1. The Second Front – Stalin demanded that the Allies open
a ‘second front’ in Western Europe to relieve pressure of the
Soviet Union. The USSR faced over 80% of all Nazi military
resources.
• In 1942 and 1943, the UK and USA decided to invade North
Africa and Italy first. These delays made Stalin suspicious,
believing that the Allies wanted the USSR to be weakened.
• When the Second Front was opened with the D-Day
Landings in France in June 1944, there were 228 Axis
divisions on the eastern front, compared to 61 divisions in
Western Europe.
Wartime Disagreements
• 2. Ideological Suspicions – Despite
agreeing to the principles of the Atlantic
Charter with the West, Stalin had concerns
over Roosevelt’s foreign policy.
• Roosevelt’s ‘Open Door’ policy was based
on ‘free’ world trade and ‘equal’ access to
raw materials – Stalin feared this would
only benefit capitalist countries like the
USA.
• The Allies attempted to resolve their
differences at three wartime conferences.
The failure of these conferences would
ultimately lead to the Cold War.
The Tehran Conference – Nov 1943
• The first conference held was in Tehran, Iran in
November 1943 and was attended by Joseph Stalin
of the USSR; Winston Churchill of the USSR; Franklin
Roosevelt of the USA.
• The conference was a fair success. Both Roosevelt
and Stalin seemed to work reasonably well together.
• However as the war progressed, a gap emerged
between Stalin’s post-war aims and those of the
Western powers.
The Tehran Conference - Debates
• State of the War – By 1943, the Allies were
winning. The Germans in retreat on the
Eastern Front, the UK and USA had invaded
North Africa and Italy and the Pacific War had
entered its ‘island hopping’ phase. However
Stalin still demanded the creation of a Second
Front in Western Europe.
• Germany – Debates over what to do with
Germany. Differences stemmed from wartime
experiences, ‘lessons’ from the failure of the
ToV and differing ideologies. They only agreed
that ‘unconditional surrender’ was the
objective. Date set for Second Front – June
1944.
The Tehran Conference - Debates
• Poland – Stalin’s concern for ‘security’ led
him to demand territory from Poland and a
pro-Soviet government. Agreed that the
USSR could keep territory seized in 1939,
Poland would be compensated with land
from Germany.
• Eastern Europe – Soviets demanded the
right to keep territory they had seized
between 1939-40 – The Baltic States,
Finland & Romania. The USA and UK
reluctantly agreed, despite this being
against the Atlantic Charter.
The Tehran Conference - Debates
• Japan – The USA and UK tried to convince
Stalin to open up a Soviet ‘second front’ in
Asia – Stalin refused until the war with
Germany was won.
• The UN – British and Soviets agreed in
principle to the US idea of a new
international organisation to be established
after the war. It would settle international
disputes through collective security.
• Conclusions – The main positive outcomes
included: agreement on the United Nations,
and on the need for a weak post-war
Germany.
How did the Tehran
Conference effect
Superpower
Relations?
The Yalta Conference – Feb 1945
• The second conference was held in February
1945 at Yalta on the Black Sea in the USSR.
The same leaders attended this conference.
• Stalin’s position was strengthened by the fact
that the Red Army occupied most of Eastern
Europe. He seemed more willing to be
assertive.
• By the time of the conference, it was clear
that Stalin was already going back on his
word – he began supporting communist
groups across Eastern Europe.
The Yalta Conference – Debates
• The State of the War – Germany was on verge
of being defeated. The Second Front had
begun with the Normandy Landings in 1944.
The Allies were ready to invade Germany
itself. The Japanese were preparing for the
invasion of their homeland.
• Germany – Decided that Germany would be
disarmed, demilitarised, de-Nazified and
divided into four zones. This division would be
temporary – Germany was to be run as ‘one
country’. An Allied Control Commission (ACC)
would govern Germany. Stalin demanded
reparations – agreed $20 billion, 50% to USSR.
The Yalta Conference – Debates
• Poland – New frontiers of Poland
decided. Eastern border was drawn at
the ‘Curzon Line’ – its pre-Russo-Polish
War (1921) border. Poland gained
territory in the West from Germany
along the ‘Oder-Neisse Line’. Stalin,
now satisfied, agreed to promise ‘free
elections’ for Poland.
• Eastern Europe – Stalin agreed that
Eastern Europe would be able to have
‘free elections’. This was seen as a
major victory for USA/UK.
The Yalta Conference – Feb 1945
• Japan – Stalin now promised to enter the war against Japan
but demanded territory in return from Japan as ‘reward’ –
South Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands.
• United Nations – Stalin agreed that the USSR would join the
UN. They would be a 5-permanent member Security
Council, each with the power of veto.
• Conclusions – Main outcomes were the agreement on the
United Nations; Soviet agreement to join the Pacific War;
and the ‘Declaration for Liberated Europe’ pledging
democratic governments and free elections in all European
countries.
How did the Yalta
Conference effect
Superpower
Relations?
The Polish Question
• The London Poles - Thousands of Poles
escaped from Poland in 1939 when they
were invaded by Germany and the USSR.
Members of the government, armed
forces and over 100,000 refugees fled to
France. They moved to London after the
fall of France in 1940.
• The London Poles were opposed to any
deals with the Soviets. They were against
the proposal at Yalta to move the borders
of their country. They demanded that if
they were to sacrifice land, they must
have cast-iron guarantees the Poland’s
government would be ‘free’ after the war.
The Polish Question
• The London Poles played a key role in the
1944 Warsaw Rising. When the Red Army
reached Warsaw, Polish Underground
Forces, commanded by the London Poles,
rose up against the Germans.
• Instead of assisting, Stalin ordered the
Red Army to stop. The Nazis brutally put
down the rebellion, killing almost 200,000
resistance fighters.
• The Soviets then moved in and ‘liberated’
Warsaw and Poland, putting their own
government in place – the Lublin Poles.
The Polish Question
• The Lublin Poles – Were a generally proSoviet group. In July 1944, a ‘Committee
of National Liberation’ was set-up in
Soviet controlled Lublin in eastern Poland.
• They became known as the Lublin
Committee, stating they wished to work
with the Soviet Union.
• They agreed to the Curzon Line and other
reforms. The USSR recognised this group
as the only lawful authority in Poland and
refused to work with the London Poles.
The Potsdam Conference
• The final conference took place at Potsdam in Germany in
July 1945. Joseph Stalin represented the USSR, Harry S
Truman the USA and Clement Atlee represented the UK.
• By this time, Germany had fully surrendered. President
Roosevelt had died and was replaced by the hard-line Harry
S. Truman. Winston Churchill lost the 1945 general election
to the Labour Party Leader, Clement Atlee.
• On the second day of the Conference, 17th July 1945, the
USA successfully tested its first atomic bomb.
The Potsdam Conference
• The State of the War – Germany had
surrendered and Japan was on the verge
of defeat. The USA was planning to use
its new atomic bomb against Japan.
• Germany – They agreed to deal with
Germany in their own ways in their own
zones. German economy to be run ‘as a
whole’ but was limited to domestic
industry and agriculture. USSR would
receive 25% of their reparation bill from
the Western Zones. Eastern zone would
give food in exchange.
The Potsdam Conference
• Poland – Truman was not happy over
Poland. He demanded that the Polish
government be ‘re-organised’ – more
London Poles within government and
‘free elections’.
• Eastern Europe – Truman was unhappy
with the ‘percentages agreement’
between the UK/USSR. He didn’t want
Eastern Europe to become a Soviet
‘sphere of influence’ – but he didn’t
have any choice – Stalin was unwilling to
budge.
The Potsdam Conference
• Japan – On 6th August 1945, the first
atomic bomb was dropped. The second
on Nagasaki was dropped on 9th August.
However Truman did not tell Stalin the
full story and even boasted of his ‘new
power’ to Stalin. Truman did not
encourage Stalin to join the war against
Japan.
• United Nations – UN became a reality
and was officially created at the Treaty
of San Francisco in 1945. The USA, USSR,
France, Britain and Nationalist China
would be the 5 permanent members.
How did the Potsdam
Conference effect
Superpower
Relations?
The final breakdown of the Alliance
• Despite agreement over the United
Nations, the division of Germany and
Poland’s new borders, many
disagreements remained unresolved.
• Stalin had taken over Eastern Europe
and it seemed unlikely he would allow
free elections. The USSR was also
threatened by the atomic bomb – it
deepened mistrust between the Allies.
• Between 1946-1947, six key
developments contributed to the
breakdown of the Grand Alliance:
1. Soviet take-over of Eastern Europe
• The USSR slowly gained increasing political
control over Eastern Europe.
• The Soviets used ‘Salami Tactics’ to defeat
the opposition – slicing off political parties
one by one. By 1946, many Moscowtrained communists leaders returned to
Eastern Europe, ensuring that post-war
governments would be dominated by
Moscow.
• In the Polish ‘free elections’ of January
1947, 246 candidates were disqualified,
149 arrested and 18 murdered. 50,000
people were deported to Siberia. Hardly
‘free’!
2. Soviet Pressure on Iran
• The USSR also tried to increase its
control of Iran. It was agreed at the
Tehran Conference that the British and
Soviets would withdraw after the war.
• UK troops left but Stalin left 30,000
troops in the north, claiming they were
needed to restore order. Iran
complained to the UK and USA.
• On 1st January 1946, Stalin again
refused to withdraw. In March, Iran
referred the case to the United Nations.
Under this pressure, Moscow pulled
out.
3. Instability in Greece and Turkey
• After the Second World War there
were anti-imperialist, nationalist and
pro-communist rebellions in Greece
and Turkey.
• The British struggled to contain these
threats. They believed that the USSR
was supporting the rebellions.
• Churchill's was particularly annoyed at
Stalin’s disregard for their
‘Percentages Agreement’ – Greece
and Turkey was supposed to be under
the West’s ‘sphere of influence’.
4. Communism in Italy and France
• In post-war Europe, Communist parties
in Italy and France grew stronger,
threatening to take-over these Western
Democracies.
• This was due to the economic hardships
these countries faced. The US and UK
were suspicious – they believed Moscow
was encouraging them.
• This gave the impression that the
Communists were trying to take-over
Western Europe as well.
5. Kennan’s Long Telegram
• In February 1946, a key US diplomat in
Moscow, George F. Kennan, sent a
telegram to the US State Department,
describing Soviet foreign policy.
• His views would have a lasting influence
on the State Department throughout the
Cold War, helping to shape the policy of
‘containment’.
• He argued that the USSR was ‘fanatically
and implacably’ hostile to the West; and
only listens to the ‘logic of force’.
6. Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech
• On 5th March 1946, former British Prime
Minister Winston Churchill gave a speech at
Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri
with President Harry S. Truman.
• Churchill, angered by the failure of the
USSR to implement free elections, used the
phrase ‘iron curtain’ to warn the world
about the Soviet take-over of Eastern
Europe.
• The speech was a defining moment in the
Cold War – Stalin replied by comparing
Churchill to Hitler! The Grand Alliance had
finally broken down – they both now
viewed each other as enemies.
“…From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain
has descended across the Continent. Behind the line lie all the capitals
of the ancient states of central and eastern Europe – Warsaw, Berlin,
Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia. All these
famous cities and the populations around them lie in the Soviet sphere
and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence
but to a very high and increasing measure of control from Moscow…
The Communist Parties, which were very small in all these eastern
states of Europe, have been raised to pre-eminence and power far
beyond their numbers and are seeking everywhere to obtain
totalitarian control. Police government are prevailing in nearly every
case… Whatever conclusions may be drawn from these facts… this is
certainly not the liberated Europe we fought to build up. Nor is it one
which contains the essentials of a permanent peace…”
Winston S. Churchill, Address at Westminster College, Fulton,
Missouri, 5th March 1946
Stalin’s Reaction to the Speech
• Within a week Stalin had compared Churchill
to Hitler, seeing the speech as ‘racist’ and a
‘call to war with the Soviet Union’. Stalin then:
• Withdrew from the International Monetary
Fund (IMF)
• Stepped up anti-Western propaganda
• Initiated a new five-year plan of selfstrengthening
• The Iron Curtain speech was therefore
significant in hardening opinions and defining
the new frontline in what was being seen as a
new war. The Grand Alliance was clearly now
dead!
Paper 2 - Exam Question 1 (2011)
• “The Potsdam Conference marked the end of the wartime alliance and laid the
foundations for post-war hostility.” With reference to the period up to 1949, to
what extent do you agree with this statement? (15 marks)
Candidates are expected to address the causes of the Cold War in their answers to this question. Events up to the Potsdam Conference
should be well known and it is likely that mention will be made of the introduction of Truman and Attlee (less on Attlee perhaps) to the
peacemaking process as well as their relationship with Stalin. The structure of the question invites candidates to argue in favour and/or
against the statement.
In agreement with the statement, candidates may argue that ideological differences were fundamental obstacles to continued
cooperation once the common enemy was defeated. It may be that some candidates will go back to the 1917 revolution to support this
analysis. This is acceptable as long as the focus remains firmly on the question. Candidates may also argue that Truman had a different
approach from Roosevelt, which meant that US–Soviet relations were likely to worsen. Evidence for this may include Truman’s meeting
with Molotov in April 1945 as well as Truman’s mention of a “new weapon” to Stalin at Potsdam. Also, disagreements over the future
development of war-ravaged Germany could be mentioned, including the discussions over reparations and how these contributed to
post-war tension.
Against the statement, it could be argued that by the meeting at Potsdam there was already an understanding among the Big Three that
post-war Europe would be restructured along the lines of “spheres of influence”, as indicated by discussions at Teheran and Yalta. It was
already clear that Stalin wanted new borders for the USSR and Poland, and the Moscow Conference of 1944 had touched upon “spheres
of influence” throughout Eastern and Central Europe. The USSR had also agreed to join the United Nations and was planning to enter the
war against Japan. The Allied Control Council was in place and Germany divided into zones of occupation. In this way, it could be argued
that there was broad agreement on significant issues. Candidates may then go on to propose that it was not until 1946, or after, that
relations worsened, and this argument could be supported by an analysis of the Long Telegram, Iron Curtain Speech, Truman Doctrine,
COMECON, Berlin Blockade, etc.
Do not expect all of the above but do expect good factual supporting evidence. Historiography should complement rather than dominate
the answer.
Paper 2 - Exam Question 2 (2009)
• For what reasons, and with what results, were there disagreements between
participants at the conferences of Yalta and Potsdam in 1945? (15 marks)
Candidates should be able to explain why there were disagreements or grounds for possible
antagonism between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin at the conference of Yalta, and Attlee,
Truman and Stalin at Potsdam, which took place in order to plan for the situation at the end
of the Second World War. The meeting at Yalta in the Crimea took place between 4–11th
February 1945. Among matters agreed were the disarmament and partition of Germany,
the establishment of the United Nations, and the declaration by USSR of war on Japan after
Germany was defeated. The Potsdam Conference lasted from 17th July to 2nd August,
1945. It was confirmed that Germany should be temporarily divided into four occupation
zones, but political differences began to emerge. Reasons for disagreements could be: clash
of personalities; different ideologies; past actions, before and during the war; mutual
suspicion and fear; illness; change of participants at Potsdam.
Policies which caused disagreement included: post-war settlement of Europe; treatment of
Germany; reparations; Poland.
Results could include: break up of war time alliance; increase of mutual fear and suspicion;
onset of the Cold War; division of Germany; establishment of Soviet satellite states.
Demands of question barely understood; poorly structured with minimal focus on the task;
little knowledge is present; some factual examples identified but factually incorrect, irrelevant
or vague; very little or no critical analysis; mostly generalisations or poorly substantiated
assertions
Some understanding of question; attempts at structured approach but lacks clarity and
coherence; knowledge is present but lacks accuracy and relevance; factual examples identified
but are vague or lack relevance; some limited analysis but is mostly descriptive/narrative in
nature, not analytical
Demands of question understood but only partially addressed; attempts at structured
approach; knowledge is mostly accurate and relevant; factual examples are appropriate and
relevant; some analysis or critical commentary but is not sustained throughout
Demands of question understood and addressed; focused and generally well-structured;
knowledge is accurate and relevant; factual examples are used to support analysis/evaluation;
critical analysis is present and mostly clear and coherent; some awareness of different
perspectives; most points are substantiated and argued to a consistent conclusion
High degree of awareness of demands and implications of question; clearly focused and wellstructured; knowledge is detailed, accurate and relevant; factual examples are used effectively
to support analysis/evaluation; critical analysis is well-developed, clear and coherent; there is
evaluation of different perspectives; all main points are substantiated and argued to a
reasoned conclusion