Posted by on 20. Dezember 2020

The three heads of state and government have ratified the agreement of the European Advisory Commission setting the limits of post-war zones of occupation for Germany: three zones of occupation, one for each of the three main allies. They also agreed to give France an area of occupation that was cut off from the areas of the United States and the United Kingdom, although De Gaulle later refused to accept that the French zone be defined by borders defined in his absence. De Gaulle therefore ordered the French forces to occupy Stuttgart in addition to the previously agreed areas, which included the French zone of occupation. He only withdrew when he threatened to suspend most of the U.S. economic supply. [11] Churchill, at Yalta, argued at the time that the French must necessarily be full members of the proposed Allied Control Council for Germany. Stalin opposed it until Roosevelt supported Churchill`s position, but Stalin insisted that the French would not be admitted to the Allied Reparation Commission, which was to be set up in Moscow, and yielded only to the Potsdam conference. Each of the three heads of state and government had their own agenda for post-war Germany and liberated Europe. Roosevelt wanted Soviet support in the American Pacific War against Japan, particularly for the planned invasion of Japan (Operation August Storm) and Soviet participation in the United Nations; Churchill insisted on free elections and democratic governments in Central and Eastern Europe (particularly Poland); Stalin called for a Soviet sphere of political influence in Central and Eastern Europe as an essential aspect of the USSR`s national security strategy.

Stalin`s position at the conference was one he believed to be so strong that he could dictate conditions. According to the member of the American delegation and future Secretary of State, James F. Byrnes, „it was not a question of what we would leave to the Russians, but what we could do to the Russians“ [9] Churchill defended his action in Yalta during a three-day parliamentary debate that began on February 27 and ended with a vote of confidence. During the debate, many MPs criticized Churchill and expressed deep reservations about Yalta and his support for Poland, 25 of whom drafted an amendment to protest the agreement. [22] According to President Roosevelt, „I think we will expose ourselves to accusations that we will try to reverse the Crimean decision if we try to avoid the fact that we attach a little more importance to Lublin`s Poland than to the other two groups from which the new government is to be drawn.“ Roosevelt acknowledged that, in the words of Admiral William D. Leahy, the Yalta language was so vague that the Soviets would be able to „stretch it from Yalta to Washington without ever breaking it technically.“ [20] The final agreement stipulated that „the provisional government, which is currently working in Poland, should therefore be reorganized on a broader democratic basis, including Polish and Polish democratic leaders abroad.“ [18] Yalta`s language recognized the supremacy of the pro-Soviet Lublin government in a provisional government, albeit a reorganized one. [19] With regard to Poland, Yalta`s report adds that the provisional government should „be obliged to hold free and unimpeded elections as soon as possible on the basis of universal suffrage and secret balloting“. [18] The agreement could not mask the importance of adhering to the short-term pro-Soviet control of the Lublin government and eliminating the language that requires supervised elections. [19] The agreement called on the signatories to „consider together the measures necessary to fulfil the common responsibilities defined in this declaration.“ During the discussions on Yalta, Molotov added language that weakens the implication of the application of the declaration. [19] At that time, the Soviet army had occupied Poland entirely and held much of Eastern Europe with a military power three times greater than allied forces in the West. [Citation required] The declaration of the liberated Europe has little to do to dispel the sphere of influence of the agreements which