16
Yalta Conference CRIMEA CONFERENCE, UKRAINE February 1945

Yalta Conference CRIMEA CONFERENCE, UKRAINE February 1945

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Yalta Conference CRIMEA CONFERENCE, UKRAINE February 1945

Yalta Conference

CRIMEA CONFERENCE, UKRAINEFebruary 1945

Page 2: Yalta Conference CRIMEA CONFERENCE, UKRAINE February 1945
Page 3: Yalta Conference CRIMEA CONFERENCE, UKRAINE February 1945

AGREEMENT AT YALTA• DIVIDE GERMANY INTO FOUR (4)

ZONES TO BE OCCUPIED AFTER THE WAR BY:–BRITAIN–FRANCE–USA–USSR

Page 4: Yalta Conference CRIMEA CONFERENCE, UKRAINE February 1945

WHAT ELSE DID WE AGREE TO?• ELECTIONS WILL BE HELD IN THE

COUNTRIES OF EASTERN EUROPE

• GOVERNMENT OF POLAND WILL BE BOTH COMMUNIST & NON-COMMUNIST

• SET UP THE UNITED NATIONS!!!!!

Page 5: Yalta Conference CRIMEA CONFERENCE, UKRAINE February 1945

• STALIN NEVER HELD FREE ELECTIONS IN POLAND

• FDR DIED ONLY TWO (2) MONTHS LATER• TRUMAN (NEXT PRESIDENT) WOULD

ATTEND THE NEXT POST-WAR CONFERENCE

• HITLER DIES APRIL 30• GERMANY SURRENDERS MAY 2, 1945

Page 6: Yalta Conference CRIMEA CONFERENCE, UKRAINE February 1945

“The SOVIET UNION HAS BEOME A DANGER TO THE FREE WORLD.”

Churchill wrote this to Roosevelt after the Yalta Conference.

The leaders of the three countries would meet one more time: Potsdam

Page 7: Yalta Conference CRIMEA CONFERENCE, UKRAINE February 1945

Potsdam Conference: JULY 1945• Truman replaces FDR• Churchill gets voted out of Office• Stalin remains–Intent of seeking reparations and as much

as they can get from Germany.

• Agreements:-Four zones of occupation in Germany-Bring Nazi War Criminals to trial.

Page 8: Yalta Conference CRIMEA CONFERENCE, UKRAINE February 1945

DISAGREEMENTS• ALLIES DID NOT AGREE TO –HOW TO DIVIDE GERMANY

–THE AMOUNT OF REPARATIONS GERMANY SHOULD PAY

–SOVIET POLICY IN EASTERN EUROPE

Page 9: Yalta Conference CRIMEA CONFERENCE, UKRAINE February 1945
Page 10: Yalta Conference CRIMEA CONFERENCE, UKRAINE February 1945

• During 1946-47, Stalin made sure that Communist governments came to power in all the countries of Eastern Europe.• CALLED: SALAMI TACTICS• The Communist description of this

process was “slicing salami,” - gradually getting rid of all opposition.

Page 11: Yalta Conference CRIMEA CONFERENCE, UKRAINE February 1945

WHAT DID RUSSIA TAKE?• A. Albania (1945)- the Communists took power after the war

without opposition• B. Bulgaria (1945)- a left-wing coalition gained power in 1945;

the Communists then executed the leaders of all other parties.• C. Poland (1947)- a coalition government took power in 1945,

but the Communists forced the non-Communist leaders into exile.

• D. Hungary (1947)• E. Romania (1945-1947)- a left-wing government coalition was

elected in 1945 and the Communists gradually took control.• F. Czechoslovakia (1945-1947)- a left-wing government

coalition was elected in 1945. In 1948 the Communists banned all other parties and killed their leaders.

• G. East Germany (1949)- the Russians turned their zone of Germany into the German Democratic Republic in 1949.

Page 12: Yalta Conference CRIMEA CONFERENCE, UKRAINE February 1945

HOW DID THE REST OF THE ALLIES REACT?

• 5 MARCH 1946, Winston Churchill–‘a shadow had fallen on Easter Europe,

which was now cut off from the free world by ‘an iron curtain.’ Behind that line, he said, the people of Easter Europe were ‘subject to Soviet influence…totalitarian control [and] police governments.’

Page 13: Yalta Conference CRIMEA CONFERENCE, UKRAINE February 1945

EUROPE: END OF WWII 1945

Page 14: Yalta Conference CRIMEA CONFERENCE, UKRAINE February 1945

SOVIET DOMINATION OF EASTER EUROPE: 1946

Page 15: Yalta Conference CRIMEA CONFERENCE, UKRAINE February 1945

WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS MEANS?

Page 16: Yalta Conference CRIMEA CONFERENCE, UKRAINE February 1945

ASSIGNMENT: PARAGRAPH• QUESTION:–Was the Yalta Conference a success or a failure

in promoting future world peace?– INSTRUCTIONS:• Take a Stand• Support your view with specific examples

from your notes or text.• Use a core democratic value in support.• Give an opposing point of view• Conclude.