6 ms·

Day One at Yalta, the Conference That Shaped the World

48 points by lermontov 7y ago

baybal2 7y ago
I recommend people in the West to read more on the Yalta process. This single meeting was what set the fate of the world for the early cold war. The parallels with today are just too much to ignore.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  I agree that it is well worth studying, but with the realization that much of what happened there, and afterwards, was determined by the realities of the strategic situation. For example, Stalin was going to occupy eastern Europe regardless of what transpired in Yalta.
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    It’s more an example of the fog of war and timing. If the Germans collapsed a few months later or the trinity test had happened earlier, the US would have had the opportunity for a lasting victory instead of a stalemate. Once available, the US was very willing to use its monopoly to wave the baton of atomic destruction. The constraints of finishing off Japan and the possibility of open war with the Soviets would have been very different.
    - JadeNB 7y ago
      > … the US would have had the opportunity for a lasting victory instead of a stalemate. I am sure I'm missing the point, but the US (together with the other allies) did achieve a lasting victory. It surely wasn't a theoretically optimal victory, but it was unquestionably lasting (for about 70 years, apparently). Am I factually wrong, did I misinterpret your meaning, or is it something else?
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  I agree that it was a very important process but what are the parallels with today? I think the current situation is more like 1920s and 1930s.
  - epicureanideal 7y ago
    I'd be interested to hear in what ways you think it's similar to the 1920s and 1930s.
    - i_haz_rabies 7y ago
      Fraying alliances, inequality, out-of-date military doctrines, increasing American isolationism, increasing polarization, rising fascism, tension in Europe, tension in East Asia, tension between established powers and new powers...
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      I think in the 1920s you saw a decay of established institutions, recession and consequently the rise of populists like the nazis. I think it’s very similar to that right now. A lot of people think that the system is not working for them anymore. That leaves an opening for strong leaders that explain everything by blaming problems on “others”. You see that with trump and also a lot of countries in Europe. Yalta was about rebuilding a world system. Right now we have to be careful about existing systems falling apart.
      - redis_mlc 7y ago
        > I think in the 1920s you saw a decay of established institutions, ... No. The inter-war period was just a lull, as Germany was not occupied and did not feel defeated. The onerous reparations actually incentived Germany to re-ignite WW1 into WW2. Britain and France might as well have asked for it. > A lot of people think that the system is not working for them anymore. Rulers don't care about people, especially Trump. Study the de Vos appointment to understand how profoundly an oligarch he is.
- handedness 7y ago
  Some would argue that it was Bretton Woods in '44 which set the fate of the Cold War (and beyond), including setting the stage for Yalta in '45.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
> Within just weeks Stalin violated protocols signed at the conference that should have guaranteed democratic freedoms for the countries of Eastern Europe, and the Iron Curtain began to descend. > The new United Nations organization set up at Yalta should have been able to intervene, but the voting arrangements agreed there allowed the Soviet Union, as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council possessing a veto, to prevent action. The Soviet Union had 6.4 million men along the Eastern Front [0], composed of battle hardened veterans led by brilliant generals such as Zhukov, with many millions more back in Russia that could be called into service. In 1945 there was no military force in the world that could have dislodged the Soviet Union from Eastern Europe. In addition, while the US was developing nukes, nobody really could be sure how effective they would be. Thus, Yalta was very pragmatic in not wanting to get into a futile struggle with Stalin over Eastern Europe as well as enlist his aid in what was anticipated to be a very bloody invasion of the Japanese homeland. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#F...
- JackFr 7y ago
  If you read a little further in the article you cited, you'd see: Among other goods, Lend-Lease supplied: 58% of the USSR's high octane aviation fuel 33% of their motor vehicles 53% of USSR domestic production of expended ordnance (artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) 30% of fighters and bombers 93% of railway equipment (locomotives, freight cars, wide gauge rails, etc.) 50–80% of rolled steel, cable, lead, and aluminium 43% of garage facilities (building materials & blueprints) 12% of tanks and SPGs 50% of TNT (1942–1944) and 33% of ammunition powder (in 1944)[55] 16% of all explosives (from 1941–1945, the USSR produced 505,000 tons of explosives and received 105,000 tons of Lend-Lease imports) And that is to say nothing of foodstuff. So had the the British and Americans turned on the Soviets, they would have faced Zhukov and 6.5 million soldiers, but with limited supplies fuel and bullets.
  - redis_mlc 7y ago
    Don't confuse facts with a logical argument. Stalin didn't care if they all died charging with empty magazines.
c-smile 7y ago
> With the UN hamstrung ever since by these voting rules, the world continues to struggle over how to contain Russian territorial ambitions such as their recent occupation of the Crimea ... That's funny if to take into account that this is about conference held in just liberated Crimea that was part of Russia (RSFSR) at the time.
- Bendingo 7y ago
  Indeed that irony will be completely lost on most (western) readers.
erland 7y ago
"Churchill wanted to [...] ensure fair and free government in Eastern Europe, especially Poland, for whom in 1939 Britain had gone to war." Poland was left largely without help during WW2. If Britain and France would agree for a preemptive strike against Hitler the whole ordeal could be avoided in the first place. If the help would come in the 3 first months of the war, most of the destruction could be averted. Lets not forget about Warsaw uprising in which 11 old kids were fighting waiting for some sort of help to come from "allies". Percentage of the destruction was bigger than in Nagasaki, yet no brit around.

48 points by lermontov 7y ago

I recommend people in the West to read more on the Yalta process. This single meeting was what set the fate of the world for the early cold war. The parallels with today are just too much to ignore.

mannykannot 7y ago
I agree that it is well worth studying, but with the realization that much of what happened there, and afterwards, was determined by the realities of the strategic situation. For example, Stalin was going to occupy eastern Europe regardless of what transpired in Yalta.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  It’s more an example of the fog of war and timing. If the Germans collapsed a few months later or the trinity test had happened earlier, the US would have had the opportunity for a lasting victory instead of a stalemate. Once available, the US was very willing to use its monopoly to wave the baton of atomic destruction. The constraints of finishing off Japan and the possibility of open war with the Soviets would have been very different.
  - JadeNB 7y ago
    > … the US would have had the opportunity for a lasting victory instead of a stalemate. I am sure I'm missing the point, but the US (together with the other allies) did achieve a lasting victory. It surely wasn't a theoretically optimal victory, but it was unquestionably lasting (for about 70 years, apparently). Am I factually wrong, did I misinterpret your meaning, or is it something else?
Ididntdothis 7y ago
I agree that it was a very important process but what are the parallels with today? I think the current situation is more like 1920s and 1930s.
- epicureanideal 7y ago
  I'd be interested to hear in what ways you think it's similar to the 1920s and 1930s.
  - i_haz_rabies 7y ago
    Fraying alliances, inequality, out-of-date military doctrines, increasing American isolationism, increasing polarization, rising fascism, tension in Europe, tension in East Asia, tension between established powers and new powers...
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    I think in the 1920s you saw a decay of established institutions, recession and consequently the rise of populists like the nazis. I think it’s very similar to that right now. A lot of people think that the system is not working for them anymore. That leaves an opening for strong leaders that explain everything by blaming problems on “others”. You see that with trump and also a lot of countries in Europe. Yalta was about rebuilding a world system. Right now we have to be careful about existing systems falling apart.
    - redis_mlc 7y ago
      > I think in the 1920s you saw a decay of established institutions, ... No. The inter-war period was just a lull, as Germany was not occupied and did not feel defeated. The onerous reparations actually incentived Germany to re-ignite WW1 into WW2. Britain and France might as well have asked for it. > A lot of people think that the system is not working for them anymore. Rulers don't care about people, especially Trump. Study the de Vos appointment to understand how profoundly an oligarch he is.
handedness 7y ago
Some would argue that it was Bretton Woods in '44 which set the fate of the Cold War (and beyond), including setting the stage for Yalta in '45.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

> Within just weeks Stalin violated protocols signed at the conference that should have guaranteed democratic freedoms for the countries of Eastern Europe, and the Iron Curtain began to descend. > The new United Nations organization set up at Yalta should have been able to intervene, but the voting arrangements agreed there allowed the Soviet Union, as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council possessing a veto, to prevent action. The Soviet Union had 6.4 million men along the Eastern Front [0], composed of battle hardened veterans led by brilliant generals such as Zhukov, with many millions more back in Russia that could be called into service. In 1945 there was no military force in the world that could have dislodged the Soviet Union from Eastern Europe. In addition, while the US was developing nukes, nobody really could be sure how effective they would be. Thus, Yalta was very pragmatic in not wanting to get into a futile struggle with Stalin over Eastern Europe as well as enlist his aid in what was anticipated to be a very bloody invasion of the Japanese homeland. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#F...

JackFr 7y ago
If you read a little further in the article you cited, you'd see: Among other goods, Lend-Lease supplied: 58% of the USSR's high octane aviation fuel 33% of their motor vehicles 53% of USSR domestic production of expended ordnance (artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) 30% of fighters and bombers 93% of railway equipment (locomotives, freight cars, wide gauge rails, etc.) 50–80% of rolled steel, cable, lead, and aluminium 43% of garage facilities (building materials & blueprints) 12% of tanks and SPGs 50% of TNT (1942–1944) and 33% of ammunition powder (in 1944)[55] 16% of all explosives (from 1941–1945, the USSR produced 505,000 tons of explosives and received 105,000 tons of Lend-Lease imports) And that is to say nothing of foodstuff. So had the the British and Americans turned on the Soviets, they would have faced Zhukov and 6.5 million soldiers, but with limited supplies fuel and bullets.
- redis_mlc 7y ago
  Don't confuse facts with a logical argument. Stalin didn't care if they all died charging with empty magazines.

c-smile 7y ago

> With the UN hamstrung ever since by these voting rules, the world continues to struggle over how to contain Russian territorial ambitions such as their recent occupation of the Crimea ... That's funny if to take into account that this is about conference held in just liberated Crimea that was part of Russia (RSFSR) at the time.

Bendingo 7y ago
Indeed that irony will be completely lost on most (western) readers.

erland 7y ago

"Churchill wanted to [...] ensure fair and free government in Eastern Europe, especially Poland, for whom in 1939 Britain had gone to war." Poland was left largely without help during WW2. If Britain and France would agree for a preemptive strike against Hitler the whole ordeal could be avoided in the first place. If the help would come in the 3 first months of the war, most of the destruction could be averted. Lets not forget about Warsaw uprising in which 11 old kids were fighting waiting for some sort of help to come from "allies". Percentage of the destruction was bigger than in Nagasaki, yet no brit around.