OCR Specification focus:
‘conferences: tensions and difficulties at Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam’
The post-war conferences of Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam shaped the early Cold War. These meetings exposed the fragility of the Grand Alliance, revealing conflicting visions for Europe’s future.
Background to the Conferences
The Grand Alliance of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union was united by a single objective: defeat of Nazi Germany.
The “Big Three”—Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin—at Livadia Palace, Yalta (February 1945). This meeting set terms for post-war Europe, including the United Nations and provisional arrangements for Eastern Europe. The image reinforces the personal dynamics behind the agreements and tensions you discuss. Source
Yet ideological divergence—capitalism versus communism—created underlying tensions. Each conference aimed to secure both immediate military cooperation and long-term political settlements.
The Tehran Conference (November–December 1943)
Aims and Agreements
Military Coordination: Agreement on the Operation Overlord invasion of France in 1944 to create a Western Front.
Soviet Commitment: Stalin promised to join the war against Japan once Germany was defeated.
Polish Borders: Early discussion of shifting Poland westwards, moving the Soviet frontier to the Curzon Line.
Emerging Tensions
Stalin sought recognition of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe, alarming Churchill.
Roosevelt aimed to maintain the alliance and avoid overt confrontation, reflecting the US desire for collective security through the future United Nations.
The Yalta Conference (February 1945)
Key Decisions
Germany: Agreement on division into four occupation zones (US, UK, USSR, and later France) with a joint Allied Control Council.
Map showing the four Allied occupation zones in Germany after 1945, with Berlin depicted as a four-power enclave within the Soviet zone. Borders are shown in a simplified, student-friendly format to highlight the zonal division central to the post-war settlement. Source
United Nations: Creation of the UN, giving the USSR a veto in the Security Council.
Eastern Europe: Declaration on Liberated Europe promising free elections, though vague in enforcement.
Tensions and Ambiguities
Stalin’s insistence on a “sphere of influence” clashed with Western calls for self-determination.
Disagreement over the Polish government: Stalin supported the communist Lublin Committee, while the West backed the London Poles.
Roosevelt’s health was failing, reducing US negotiating leverage.
The Potsdam Conference (July–August 1945)
Changing Context
Germany had surrendered in May 1945.
Leadership changes heightened uncertainty: Harry S. Truman replaced Roosevelt, Clement Attlee replaced Churchill mid-conference.
Clement Attlee, Harry S. Truman and Joseph Stalin seated in the garden at Cecilienhof, Potsdam (July–August 1945). The image captures the altered cast of decision-makers as the war ended and disagreements over reparations and Eastern Europe sharpened. It supports your discussion of the hardening positions evident at Potsdam. Source
The successful US test of the atomic bomb (Trinity test) emboldened American diplomacy.
Decisions
Germany: Agreement on demilitarisation, denazification, and democratization. Economic unity was desired but poorly defined.
Territorial Issues: Confirmation of the Oder–Neisse line as Poland’s provisional western frontier.
Japan: Demand for unconditional surrender, with vague Soviet promises to join the Pacific war.
Heightened Frictions
Truman adopted a tougher stance, challenging Soviet demands for reparations.
Stalin perceived the atomic bomb as a threat, intensifying the arms race and mistrust.
Key Themes Across the Conferences
Ideological Conflict
Sphere of Influence: A region where one power exerts predominant political, military, or economic control, often without formal annexation.
The USSR sought a buffer of friendly states, rooted in historical fears of invasion. The US and UK advocated self-determination, reflecting liberal democratic ideals.
Personal Relationships
Roosevelt’s pragmatism contrasted with Truman’s assertiveness.
Churchill’s suspicion of Stalin was clear, but he also recognised the need for Soviet cooperation.
Stalin remained calculating, prioritising Soviet security over alliance harmony.
Impact on the Cold War
Agreements at Tehran and Yalta contained ambiguities, allowing divergent interpretations.
Potsdam symbolised the transition from wartime cooperation to bipolar confrontation.
The failure to establish a genuine post-war consensus paved the way for later crises, including the Iron Curtain division and the Berlin Blockade.
Legacy for Europe
The conferences redrew Europe’s political map, laying the groundwork for Eastern Bloc consolidation under Soviet control.
Western leaders underestimated Stalin’s determination to impose communist regimes, a misjudgement that fuelled the emerging Cold War order.
These conferences demonstrate how wartime alliances, shaped by necessity, were unable to survive the ideological and strategic rivalries that intensified as victory approached.
FAQ
Poland’s post-war borders and government were central to tension.
Stalin wanted the Curzon Line as Poland’s eastern border, expanding Soviet territory.
The West pushed for free elections and inclusion of the London Poles, but Stalin backed the communist Lublin Committee.
At Potsdam, the West reluctantly accepted the Oder–Neisse line as Poland’s western frontier, deepening mistrust.
News of the successful Trinity test reached Truman during the conference.
Truman became more confident, resisting Soviet demands for German reparations.
Stalin, aware through Soviet intelligence of the test, saw the bomb as a direct challenge.
This knowledge accelerated the early arms race and worsened alliance relations.
The USSR suffered immense wartime destruction and sought major reparations from Germany.
Stalin wanted both monetary compensation and industrial assets, especially from the Ruhr.
The United States feared excessive reparations would destabilise Europe, as after World War I.
The compromise allowed Soviet reparations from its own zone and some transfers from the Western zones, but disputes lingered.
Japan featured in each meeting’s strategic planning.
At Tehran, Stalin promised to join the war against Japan after Germany’s defeat.
Yalta confirmed Soviet entry within three months of Germany’s surrender, in return for territorial concessions in Asia.
Potsdam issued an ultimatum for unconditional Japanese surrender, with Soviet involvement still pending until August 1945.
Trust steadily eroded despite cordial beginnings.
Early cooperation between Roosevelt and Stalin gave way to suspicion as Soviet intentions in Eastern Europe became clearer.
Churchill remained wary but pragmatic, balancing alliance needs with caution.
Truman’s tougher style and Attlee’s domestic priorities reduced any sense of camaraderie at Potsdam, marking the transition to open Cold War rivalry.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
Identify two key agreements made at the Yalta Conference of February 1945.
Mark Scheme
Award 1 mark for each correct agreement identified, up to a maximum of 2 marks.
Acceptable answers include:
Division of Germany into four occupation zones (US, UK, USSR, and later France).
Establishment of the United Nations with a Soviet veto in the Security Council.
Declaration on Liberated Europe promising free elections.
Agreement that the USSR would enter the war against Japan after Germany’s defeat.
Question 2 (5 marks)
Explain how changes in leadership between the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences affected relations within the Grand Alliance.
Mark Scheme
Level 1 (1–2 marks):
Simple or general statements about leadership change with limited linkage to relations (e.g. “Truman replaced Roosevelt and was tougher on Stalin”).
Level 2 (3–4 marks):
Clear explanation of at least one way leadership change influenced tensions, such as:
Truman’s more assertive stance over reparations and Poland, which increased friction.
Attlee’s focus on British economic recovery leading to reduced ability to challenge the USSR.
Level 3 (5 marks):
Developed explanation showing secure understanding of multiple factors and their effects, for example:
Truman’s knowledge of the atomic bomb emboldened US diplomacy, heightening Stalin’s mistrust.
Attlee’s replacement of Churchill meant loss of an experienced negotiator, reducing cohesion in Allied strategy and reinforcing the Soviet sense of advantage.
