Comments by "Nicholas Conder" (@nicholasconder4703) on "Did Stalin seek a Separate Peace with Hitler in WW2? | TIK Q&A 21" video.
-
15
-
@JohnYoga When Roosevelt gave his pronouncement at the Yalta Conference in January 1943, the Soviet Union was still in dire straits. Although the 6th Army had been surrounded, it was by no means defeated. So, there was the possibility that Stalin might have tried using the potential collapse of the eastern front as leverage to get the Germans to the bargaining table. The Red Army did not know until after Kursk if could beat the Wehrmacht year round. Britain and the US probably has some inkling that Stalin might be serious about his negotiations, rather than just testing the waters. So, by telling the world that Britain and the United States were going to be in this for the long haul may, in part, have been sending the message to Stalin that the Western Allies were going to fight to the death to defeat Germany, and would never sign a separate peace. Stalin, astute politician that he was, may have seen this as a veiled dare. After all, if you claim to be the proponent of International Communism, and then "wimp out" when the going gets tough or it is convenient to do so, you stand a good chance of losing support for your form of government both at home and abroad.
5
-
2
-
@Grimenoughtomaketherobotcry I am not assuming as much unity between the US and the UK as you may suppose. They wanted to present a united front, but there were undercurrents present that most people were unaware of at the time. For one thing, Roosevelt's pronouncement at Casablanca caught Churchill off guard. I suspect it was discussed at the table, since Churchill grudgingly went along with it, but I suspect that the two leaders had something else in mind. Furthermore, I think one US agenda throughout the war was to end colonialism, whether through a naive belief this would make the world a better place (after all, they do say they want nations to have self determination), or a cynical means to break up closed markets, or both. There is a wonderful Nazi cartoon about Lend-Lease, showing a cheerful Roosevelt shearing the British Lion. Churchill, being of the Victoria and Edwardian mindset, obviously wanted to maintain the British Empire.
The permanent stationing of US troops in Europe was not an American war aim. Initially, some military force would have to remain in Germany to help rebuild infrastructure and re-establish rule of law. This is what happened in Japan as well. However, the permanent stationing of troops in Europe came about as a result of it becoming very clear in mid- to late 1945 that Stalin was not going to move his troops out of eastern Europe, and was set on establishing a bunch of puppet states put into place with sham elections and the backing of the Red Army. Although the British and American leaders probably suspected this would happen, having it unfold before their eyes was probably rather depressing. One need only look at the wars and crises that Stalin started before his death, the blockade of Berlin and the Korean War, to see his desire to expand communist rule everywhere. Look at Kruschev's "We will bury you" speech. All the treaties the Soviet Union signed, then broke. The crushing of the Hungarian Uprising and the Prague Spring. The invasion of Afghanistan. The placement of weapons on their space station in contravention of UN treaties. And the list goes on ... [by the way, this is not to say the Americans haven't a similarity long litany of extremely dubious activity in the Americas, Asia and elsewhere either].
The permanent basing of US troops in Europe came about because of need, not desire. It was done as a deterrent and to assist the western European countries in case of Soviet invasion, not as an occupation force. And given ex-KGB agent Putin's threats and apparent desire to re-establish the Soviet Union (or create the unwanted Pan-Slavic Union), sadly they are still needed there.
2