Soon, the Crimean Peninsula of the Ukraine is scheduled to secede from the nation and join Russia, which has sparked several debates within the Ukraine, Russia and the United States. Many other countries, including Great Britain, have warned Russia to pull its forces back out of the Ukraine. The irony however is not lost, because almost seventy years ago, the Crimean Peninsula was home to one the greatest negotiations in history. The Big Three were all present, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt of the United States, Joseph Stalin, Premier of the Soviet Union, and Prime Minister Winston Churchill from Great Britain. Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill met at the Teheran and Yalta Conferences to decide the coordination of attacks on Germany and Japan, the post war territorial boundaries, the division of Germany and whether or not the nation should pay reparations, and the creation of the United Nations. Afterwards, the conferences were debated as either positive or negative because of their consequences, and whether or not some agreed with what was decided and others didn’t.
The first time Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill met was on the 28th of November in Teheran, the capital of Iran, where current problems during the war and postwar politics were discussed (Naden and Blue 187-188). The Teheran Conference lasted until December 1st, and during that time the Big Three covered four main issues. The most pressing of which was planning an attack on Hitler’s forces, coming from both the east and the west. Eventually, Roosevelt and Churchill planned Operation Overlord, or D-Day, which took place on June 6th 1944. Two weeks later, Stalin helped the war effort by contributing an attack on Hitler’s eastern army in Belorussia. The second pr...
... middle of paper ...
...l Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Ed. William A. Darity, Jr. 2nd ed. Vol. 8. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008. 86-87. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 26 Feb. 2014.
"Teheran Conference." Europe Since 1914: Encyclopedia of the Age of War and Reconstruction. Ed. John Merriman and Jay Winter. Vol. 5. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2006. 2505-2507. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 26 Feb. 2014.
"Yalta Agreement: Was the Yalta Agreement the Best the West Could Have Negotiated?" History in Dispute. Ed. Benjamin Frankel. Vol. 1: The Cold War: First Series. Detroit: St. James Press, 2000. 300-307. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 23 Feb. 2014.
"Yalta Conference." UXL Encyclopedia of U.S. History. Sonia Benson, Daniel E. Brannen, Jr., and Rebecca Valentine. Vol. 8. Detroit: UXL, 2009. 1739-1742. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 4 Feb. 2014.
Crockatt, Richard. The fifty years war : the United States and the Soviet Union in world politics, 1941-1991. London; New York; Routledge, 1995.
...et al. Vol. 4: Primary Sources. Detroit: UXL, 2006. 146-161. U.S. History in Context. Print. 17 Nov. 2013.
Eibling, Harold H., et al., eds. History of Our United States. 2nd edition. River Forest, Ill: Laidlaw Brothers, 1968.
This investigation assesses the success of the policies of Henry Kissinger during the tense period of the Cold War and the sequential years, specifically pertaining to the peace summits with Russian officials in 1972 and 1973 with regard to the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties. This investigation evaluates Kissinger’s impact during the period of the SALT treaties on the reduction of nuclear arms and the implementation of détente. Specifically, how Kissinger got what he wanted, the risks involved, and the outcome of the treaties. The sources used, Détente and the Nixon Doctrine, by Robert S. Litwak and Kissinger: 1973, The Crucial Year, by Alistair Horne, will then be evaluated for their origins, purposes, values, and limitations.
Foreign and domestic policies during the Cold War lead to both the separation of world powers and the fear of political and social systems throughout the world. After World War 2 ended, tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union heightened. The agreements made at the Yalta Conference between Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt, were not being followed by the Soviets. The Soviet Union kept the land they reconquered in Eastern Europe and did not enforce a democratic government in those countries, as they promised. Instead, the Soviet Union decided to continue spreading communism in their reconquered lands.
Despite the appearance of goodwill exhibited in Khrushchev’s speeches, a Western leader would be inherently skeptical of the Stalin crony as he attempts to gain and maintain power over the Soviet Union and his own party. An obvious politician, Khrushchev’s “peaceful coexistence” and “Secret Speech” in February 1956 served to distance him from the unpopular and failing Stalinist approach of communist control. His rhetoric, however, remains no less expansionist than his predecessor. Specifically, in his comments on “peaceful coexistence”, Khrushchev emphasized the ultimate triumph of the socialist system, but concedes that military intervention alone will not achieve such a victory (Judge & Langdon, 339). Rhetoric aside, one must consider Khrushchev’s
After reading William R. Keylor's The Legacy of the Great War, I realized the important events that pertain to the international relations. Until our present day there has not been so many great leaders come together to address issues such as: politics, economics, and social settings in Europe. This is the beginning of the problems in European civilization.
The second time FDR, Churchill and Stalin met was the Yalta Conference to talk about four important things (Morris 1739). An...
Walens, Susann. A. United States History Since 1877. Western Connecticut State University, Danbury, CT. September 2007.
It is the inquisitive nature of man that is primary driving force behind the Five W’s: Who, What, When, Where and Why. Though these are all meaningful pursuits in their own right, it is the purpose of this piece to shed light on the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union’s purpose, as well as the most likely causes for its manifestation. Also in question, but not out of the scope of discussion, is whether or not non-aggression pacts truly work to preserve peace, or whether they are unintentionally one of the primary fuel sources that combust to cause war amongst the nations involved. The realist holds the key to this argument. The realist perspective sits alone as being the most concise angle from which to view the events transpired. However, without understanding a bulk of the history, a moderately concise answer cannot be delivered to the reader.
Gaddis, John Lewis. “We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History.” Taking Sides: Clashing Views On Controversial Issues in United States History. Ed. Larry Madaras and James M. SoRelle. 14th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. 302-308.
United States. Economic and Social Council. Department of Economic and Social Affairs.Family Social Policy and Development Division. By Robert Cliquet. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, n.d. Web. Oct. 2013.
Abigail C. Saguy2 and Rene Almeling Sociological Forum, Vol. 23, No. 1, March 2008 (_ 2008)
University of Michigan. Institute for Social Research. [Publications]. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute of Social Research.