“Roosevelt discussed the issues with Churchill and Stalin for the last time at Yalta in the Crimea in early February 1945.  The very name ‘Yalta’ has served as a metaphor for the ebb and flow of tensions with the Soviet Union.  For some U.S. participants, the conference seemed, in Hopkin’s words, ‘the first great victory for the peace,’ a meeting where allies with divergent interests reached reasonable agreements to end the war and establish a basis for lasting peace.  Less than ten years later, in the tense atmosphere of the early Cold War, Yalta became synonymous with treason, fiercely partisan critics of FDR claiming that a dying president, duped by pro-Communist advisers, conceded Soviet control over Poland and Eastern Europe and sold out Chiang Kai-shek.  A ‘great betrayal,’ it was labeled, ‘appeasement greater than Munich.’  Because a ‘sick man went to Yalta’ and ‘gave away much of the world,’ Senator William Langer fumed, ‘our beloved country is facing ruin and destruction.'” –George Herring, From Colony to Superpower, pp. 584-85

Discussion Questions

  • Herring goes on to write that the Yalta Conference in 1945 “cannot be understood” without appreciating its context.  What was the most essential context for appreciating the challenges posed to FDR at this Big Three gathering?
  • How should we assess the historic significance of the Allies in World War II?  Did they win the war but lose the opportunity for shaping a better peace?