The relationships between Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman and Attlee defined wartime cooperation, revealed deep ideological divisions, and ultimately shaped the emerging Cold War order.

Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt: Early Interactions

Wartime Unity and Pragmatism

The Grand Alliance, formed in 1941, was a coalition of necessity between the USSR, the USA and Britain. Despite vast ideological differences, the three powers united against the shared threat of Nazi Germany.

• Joseph Stalin demanded recognition of Soviet security needs, particularly territorial buffers.

• Winston Churchill sought to preserve Britain’s global influence and limit Soviet expansion.

• Franklin D. Roosevelt prioritised maintaining unity and envisioned a post-war international system centred on collective security through the United Nations.

This cooperation was marked by tension, suspicion, and contrasting goals, but necessity outweighed mistrust during most of the war.

Contrasting Personalities and Ideologies

• Stalin, the Soviet leader, prioritised survival and expansion of Communism, though he presented his aims as security measures.

• Churchill, the staunch anti-Communist, nonetheless made compromises when military necessity demanded.

• Roosevelt acted as a mediator, balancing Churchill’s suspicion with Stalin’s demands.

These dynamics explain why wartime collaboration often disguised deep fractures.

Tensions Beneath the Alliance

Stalin’s Demands and Western Hesitancy

Stalin persistently called for a Second Front in Western Europe to relieve Soviet forces on the Eastern Front. Churchill delayed such action, prioritising the Mediterranean strategy, while Roosevelt supported eventual invasion. This delay fuelled Stalin’s belief that the West sought to weaken the USSR deliberately.

Competing Visions for Post-War Europe

• Stalin aimed to establish a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, creating buffer states loyal to Moscow.

• Churchill favoured a restoration of traditional European balance, wary of Soviet dominance.

• Roosevelt hoped for self-determination but often compromised to secure Stalin’s cooperation.

Roosevelt’s Death and Truman’s Arrival

A Sudden Change in American Leadership

In April 1945, Roosevelt died, and Harry S. Truman assumed the presidency. Truman adopted a firmer stance toward Stalin, departing from Roosevelt’s conciliatory tone.

• Truman distrusted Communism deeply.

• He was more inclined to back Churchill’s scepticism of Soviet motives.

• At Potsdam, Truman demonstrated growing hostility, especially after learning of the successful atomic bomb test.

This shift intensified suspicions, signalling the breakdown of wartime cooperation.

Churchill and Stalin: Shifting Relations

Alliance of Convenience

Churchill’s relationship with Stalin was pragmatic. Despite anti-Communist convictions, Churchill engaged directly with Stalin in the so-called “Percentages Agreement” (1944), which attempted to divide Eastern Europe into spheres of influence. While never officially ratified, it reflected Churchill’s willingness to compromise strategically.

Breakdown of Trust

Churchill grew increasingly alarmed by Stalin’s actions in Eastern Europe, especially the imposition of Communist regimes. His “Iron Curtain” rhetoric (delivered later in 1946) reflected concerns already brewing during the final wartime months.

Attlee’s Premiership and Its Impact

Change in British Leadership

In July 1945, Clement Attlee replaced Churchill as Prime Minister following Labour’s electoral victory. Attlee’s arrival changed the personal dynamics at Potsdam:

• Attlee was less forceful in negotiations than Churchill.

• His priority was domestic reconstruction, limiting Britain’s ability to assert strong influence against Stalin.

• Nonetheless, Britain remained aligned with the USA in resisting Soviet expansion.

The Decline of British Influence

With Attlee in office, Britain’s weakened economic and military position became more apparent, leaving the USA as the primary counterbalance to the USSR. Stalin increasingly dismissed British objections as secondary.

Stalin’s Calculations with Western Leaders

Manipulation and Control

Stalin exploited the divisions between Western leaders. He portrayed Soviet actions as defensive necessities, often using ambiguous promises of free elections to placate Roosevelt and Churchill.

Deteriorating Relations by 1945

By the end of the war:

• Stalin viewed Western hesitancy on the Second Front as betrayal.

• Churchill feared unchecked Soviet expansion.

• Truman abandoned Roosevelt’s cautious diplomacy in favour of confrontation.

• Attlee offered limited resistance, reinforcing Stalin’s belief in Anglo-American division.

Key Turning Points in Relations

Tehran Conference (1943)

• Roosevelt and Stalin found common ground, marginalising Churchill.

• Stalin secured promises for a Second Front in 1944.

• Tensions over Poland and Eastern Europe persisted.

Yalta Conference (1945)

• Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin agreed to the United Nations and post-war division of Germany.

At Yalta, the Big Three formalised plans for Germany and endorsed the creation of the United Nations. The photograph foregrounds leader-to-leader relations while advisors stand behind them. Source

• Stalin promised free elections in Eastern Europe but pursued Communist dominance.

Potsdam Conference (1945)

• With Truman and Attlee replacing Roosevelt and Churchill, discussions grew more strained.

This photograph presents Attlee, Truman and Stalin seated together at Potsdam shortly after Britain’s change of government. It illustrates the altered personal dynamics confronting the final wartime conference. The image is tightly framed on the three leaders, avoiding background advisors to keep the focus on relations. Source

• The USA revealed possession of the atomic bomb, exacerbating mistrust.

• Disputes over Poland and reparations heightened divisions.

Conclusion of Wartime Relations

Although the Grand Alliance achieved victory, relations between Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman and Attlee deteriorated rapidly. Mutual suspicion, conflicting ideologies, and differing priorities ensured that cooperation gave way to confrontation, laying the groundwork for the Cold War.