History Hl Cold War the Tehran Conference Notes and Analysis

THE TEHRAN CONFERENCE (1943) – Worksheet
The first meeting of the "Big Three" took place in the Iranian capital of Tehran. From November 28 to December 1, 1943, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin met to focus on the following areas: the war, Germany after the war, Poland after the war, Eastern Europe after the war, Japan, and the establishment of the United Nations.

Instructions 1. Read pages 9 to 12 of the text History - 20th Century World: The Cold War. 2. Using the information on pages 9 to 12 of the text History - 20th Century World: The Cold War, complete the following table (see below). 3. Feel free to add and use ANY resources possible, but DO NOT COPY AND PASTE. 4. Feel free to use the table and adjust the size of each box according to the amount of information you have provided. 5. Read the marks scheme below the list in order to understand how the activity will be graded. 6. Once completed, save and title the file in the following manner: "THE TEHRAN CONFERENCES (1943) - Worksheet - (Your Full Name).docx". If you are using Pages, follow the same format. 7. Once you finish titling the completed work, save the file on a USB flash-drive or stick (or portable hard drive) and submit it to me via these medium (DO NOT EMAIL THE WORK).
Sites Used: http://quizlet.com/12019624/ib-world-topics-hl-the-cold-war-flash-cards/ Book Source Used:
Our Textbook History-20th Century World: The Cold War http://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/TehranConf http://www.gcsehistory.org.uk/modernworld/coldwar/tehranyaltapotsdam.htm http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/militarystrategies/p/tehran.htm AGENDA | WHAT HAPPENED? | Analysis: How did this raise the tension between the USA (and Britain) and the USSR? | Who was at fault? USA? USSR? Or Both? Explain. | The War | * After significant turning points during WWII in 1942, the Allies were defeating Nazi Germany. However, much of the fighting against Nazi Germany was taken on by the Soviet Union. * Stalin still wanted the support of the UK and US in the opening of a second front against Germany, to squeeze Germany in a pincer movement. * The US and UK agreed to provide the support Stalin wanted but only at the right time of action. | * Stalin felt abandoned by the US and UK, as they were not giving his people the military support they needed.; * Stalin also felt suspicious of the US and UK’s true intentions, as they agreed to help him at the ‘right time.’ He felt that they were placing their obligations above the welfare of the Allies (he felt that they were selfishly prioritizing themselves over the USSR and the people dying and struggling without any sort of aid from the Allies). * Stalin feared that the US was trying to gain an advantage over the USSR by delaying support and weakening his country. (What was Stalin’s basis for this particular point you have stated?) | * I think that both were at fault. * The US was at fault because they purposely worded their agreement in a manner that was bound to be deemed suspicious; they created a loophole for themselves and both the US and USSR knew it. * The USSR was at fault because they feared for the worst and did not stop to see things from the US’ point of view; the US was trying to wait for the opportune time to aid the USSR, as opposed to letting the USSR deplete their sources and military for their own advantage | Germany | * There was no agreement on what was to happen to Germany’s future. However, the invasion date for the amphibious landing—also known as Operation Overlord--was decided by the two parties. * All three countries wanted a complete and total surrender from Germany, not just defeat them. * They wanted to get rid of the Nazi political party in Germany, as well as de-militarize Germany as to make sure she could not be a threat in the future. * Stalin wanted Germany to suffer. * The Allies agreed to give a portion of Germany’s land to compensate for the readjustment of Poland’s borders. * The Allies stated the possibility of occupying Germany into Allied zones. | * The differing ideologies of the US and USSR meant that each country wanted a different ideological outcome for future Germany (what were these outcomes?). There was mutual tension as each country tried to win the ideological battle for Germany’s fate. * There was great tension and frustration between the USSR and the US and UK because although all three of the countries may have wanted Germany to suffer, the manner in which they believed this justice (or revenge in Stalin’s case) should be carried out was very different (Again, like the comment above, explain how each country wanted to carry their sense of justice towards Germany). | * I think that the conflict over Germany’s fate was inevitable, as there really was no ‘middle ground’ in relation to the ideologies of the two countries * However, I believe that in this case, Stalin was more at fault. Stalin’s desire for revenge created a lot of fear (why?) for both the US and the UK as they needed to answer to their people and to the international public. | Poland | * Stalin wanted to gain territory from Poland in order to secure USSR’s western border. * Stalin also wanted to ensure that Poland had a pro-Soviet government. * *Stalin ensured the Allies that Poland would have a more democratic government, with free elections. * It was agreed that the USSR would be able to keep territory it had seized in 1939 * Poland was to gain land from Germany, whilst also giving around half of her land to the USSR. | * The US and UK were put into a precarious situation, because they were given the decision power what to do with Poland and her borders. * There was tension between the US and USSR because of Poland because the USSR was, again, demanding what they wanted and forcing the US and UK to support them, no matter what. This in turn caused fear because the UK and US had no choice but to adhere to Stalin’s will; he had all the bargaining chips. * Furthermore, the US and UK would have to answer for what happened to both Poland and Europe (For example, the dead bodies of 10,000 massacred Polish soldiers were found in the Soviet forests). (How did this point raise the tension between the “Big Three”?) | * I think that this was mostly the fault of the USSR, but the US had some fault as well * I think the USSR was too demanding, and their reasons were insufficient for the amount of disturbance their demands created. What they claimed they wanted to do, and what they were truly planning to do was not the same; they didn’t lie per say but they did omit important truths. For example, Stalin really did want to use Poland according to his will (he wanted to exert heavy Soviet influence over Poland), and his democratic intentions stated to Churchill and Roosevelt was just an excuse. * I believe the US and UK were at fault to a little extent because they gave into the Soviet demands and in doing so created a situation that harbored hostility between two already war-damaged countries. However, I do think they had little to no choice but to accept Stalin’s demands. | Eastern Europe | * The USSR wanted to keep the territory they had seized from 1939 and 1940. (This territory included the Baltic States, as well as parts of Finland and Romania). * The US and UK agreed to what the USSR wanted, but this went against the Atlantic Charter that was made in 1941 between the two countries * Roosevelt also received Stalin’s assurance that Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia would be incorporated into the USSR only after the citizens voted on this in a referendum. At the same time, Stalin stressed that this went against the Soviet constitution, and that he did not want any international control at the elections. | * The US and UK were slightly unsure as to whether or not Stalin would follow through on his assurance of a fair voting by the peoples of Eastern Europe. They were suspicious as to what terms they had exacted upon; what they thought Stalin had agreed to, and what Stalin had actually agreed to do were two different things. * There was a significant amount of tension in the decision that the US and UK made because they were forced to make a decision that would violate a previous Charter specifically state which charter and briefly state the detail of this charter in order to show how it created the tension), based on shaky assurance. | * This was the fault of both the USSR and the US, as the suspicion and fear came from the fact that the USSR kept demanding the territories that it had ‘won’ in 1939 and 1940. * However, the fear of disapproval from both the US and UK public was the fault of the US and UK because they were the ones who broke the Atlantic Charter. * Furthermore, Stalin stressed to the Allies his rejection of any international influence, which was a pretty clear indication of how he wanted to exert full control in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Any future conflict that may have arisen from US or UK intervention was clearly forewarned here. | Japan | * US and UK wanted the USSR to go to war against Japan (they wanted the USSR to support them in a war against Japan) * The USSR wanted to declare war on Japan only after the war against Germany was won. * In exchange for Stalin’s declaration of war against Japan, the Allies agreed to give Stalin the Kurile Islands, the southern half of Sakhalin, and access to two ports in China (Darien and Port Arthur, both ice-free ports). * | * The focus of both the USSR and the Allies was completely different. Stalin didn’t want to engage in the war in the Pacific just yet because he was already busy fighting his war with Germany; fighting in another area would only wear out Soviet resources. The different focus’ caused mutual suspicion, as each side tried to convince the other to support the cause they believed was the most important or imminent. * Furthermore, Stalin already knew how much the US and UK needed and wanted his help in the war against Japan. He used this knowledge to gain assurances (things he wanted, such as the acquiring of the ports in China) that the Allies otherwise wouldn’t have assented to. | * Can anyone be at fault here? * If I had to make a judgment, I’d say that this was mostly the US and UK’s fault. They let their desire for aid in their war against Japan overrule any other promise they may have made. * By making their priority Japan, and by making their priority known to the Soviet Union, they essentially allowed the Soviets to make both the US and the UK controllable in Stalin’s hands. | The establishment of the UN | * The US really wanted to establish an organization in place of the League of Nations. They wanted to create an organization that would settle international arguments through collective security. * Roosevelt clearly outlined to Stalin his proposal for the United Nations. He explained how the committee would be restricted, so that four policeman (China, the US, the USSR, and UK) would have ‘power to act immediately to any threat of peace’ * The UK and USSR agreed to this idea in a general way. | * The USSR was suspicious as to the successfulness of this idea, after all a similar idea had failed before. The US had proposed the League of Nations, but had not even joined it. * Although on the surface it may have seemed like the allow-ment of USSR veto power in the UN was a sign of trust, it was actually simply a move to assure the USSR that the US and UK supported them. It was a reassurance move. It was necessary because there was already mutual suspicion that existed, and this was an attempt at lowering this suspicion. | * The US and UK were at fault. In positioning the USSR in a position of significant power in the UN, they created a great probability of future problems. They essentially made the UN unable to make a decision unless both the US and USSR agreed on something. This would obviously create tension as the two would have very different ideas of what to do. * Second, they gave the USSR the power to act according to what they believed was right/necessary in the international world, also creating future situations of more tension and conflict. |

Mark scheme A+ | B | C | D | F | * Excellent – the summary of each agenda was discussed completely. * The table clearly illustrates the growing differences (What Happened?) and tensions (Analysis) between the two and greatly alludes to the cause of mutual suspicion and fear between the two parties. * Make sure you add some details in some of your analysis to make it more effective. * Well analyzed! | * You have discussed the differing points that occurred in the Tehran agenda very well. * The table explains the growing differences (What Happened?) and tensions (Analysis) between the two and alludes to the cause of mutual suspicion and fear between the two parties. * Adequately analyzed. | * You have provided a decent amount of explanations in your discussion about the differing points raised in the agendas of the Tehran Conference. * The table provides a general overview of the growing differences (What Happened?) and tensions (Analysis) between the two and begins to illustrate the cause of mutual suspicion and fear between the two parties. | * You have done a decent attempt in explaining the differing points raised in the agendas of the Tehran Conference * The table briefly shows a simple overview of the growing differences (What Happened?) and tensions (Analysis) between the two and attempts to illustrate the cause of mutual suspicion and fear between the two parties. | * Little or no attempt has been done in this activity. |