Did the Horrible Yalta Decision Create the Cold War?

I just finished the outstanding book, “Totalitarianism” by Hannah Arendt, first published in 1951. She made two points, among many, that ignited my “little grey cells”.

First, that a revolutionary totalitarian movement must be expanding. Becoming ossified by bureaucracy, laws and government causes the movement to lose its raison d’etre.

Second, that western appeasement simply feeds its growth and helps sustain fervor and avoid governmental morass.

Two well-studied instances of 20th century totalitarianism are the Soviet Union under Stalin and Germany under Hitler. Two critical instances of western appeasement are the Munich pact and Yalta decision.

After Munich, Hitler correctly believed that Britain and France would not oppose his eastern expansion. Even before that he had good evidence they would do nothing since they had permitted him to militarize the Rhineland in 1936 and occupy Austria in 1938. But the Munich conference made them expressly agree. Czechoslovakian treaty obligations were broken and that free nation was turned over to the Nazis to the eternal shame of Britain and France.

Feeding the beast merely makes it stronger. Next Hitler made a deal with his totalitarian brother Stalin to divide Poland. Believing Britain and France would again acquiesce, Hitler proceeded to attack free Poland which was then attacked in the rear by Stalin. Passivity ruled, as France and Britain declared war, but did not attack Germany. Nazi totalitarianism extended over almost all of Europe. Active, aggressive opposition would have scared the German generals who, at those early times, could have deposed Hitler.

What about Yalta?

At the time of the Yalta conference in February 1945, President Franklin Roosevelt was a dying man. The Red Army occupied Poland, most of the rest of Eastern Europe and lay only 40 miles from Berlin. Stalin promised free elections in Poland, but he had already installed a puppet government. Silly World War II propaganda cast Stalin as “Uncle Joe”, a good ally. Roosevelt wanted Stalin to attack Japan and to participate in the United Nations. Britain and the US wanted free elections in Poland and all of Eastern Europe. Stalin wanted to keep the territory he had seized in 1939 from free Poland and his intent to establish hegemony over it had already been shown. But free Poland was an ally against Nazi Germany. Britain had treaty obligations with the free Polish government (then in exile) and the US had a moral obligation to it since Poland had been re-created after World War I in the Versailles conference where President Woodrow Wilson had been very influential.

We know now that Soviet help with Japan was not necessary because of US development of the atomic bomb. We also know that the US State Department and the Yalta delegation were riddled with communist spies, as was the atomic bomb project.

The US and Britain appeased Stalin by ratifying his seizure of the half of Poland he had occupied since 1939 and the free Polish government in exile was not reinstalled as with other conquered nations. The combined effect served to feed Poland to Stalin’s movement. Czechoslovakia, the object of the Munich appeasement with Hitler, was also effectively turned over the Stalin’s totalitarianism. His hegemony over most of Eastern Europe was ratified and the phony elections installed communist governments that were recognized by the US and Britain. All became members of the UN; Stalin received two extra votes for Ukraine and Byelorussia. The beast of Stalinism was invigorated by the Yalta appeasement, a despicable act of immoral realpolitik.

Stalin did keep his promise to attack Japan. He did so through Manchuria and, following his precedence in Poland, helped the communist military under Mao to seize power in China. His military helped put a communist leader in control of North Korea. Later he violated his Yalta agreements on Berlin, causing the Berlin airlift. And he approved and supported the invasion of South Korea, leading to the Korean War.

The appeasement of Stalin extended his revolutionary totalitarian movement to many lands. The express ratification by the US and Britain of Stalin’s takeover in Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe gave life to his revolutionary movement outside of the Soviet Union. World revolution became institutionalized as part of the Politburo post-Stalin. Over the next decades, revolutionary communism metastasized into “people’s liberation movements” in many places in Africa, Asia and the Americas. Although recognition of the threat of Stalin’s totalitarian movement began in 1946 with Churchill’s famous “Iron Curtain” speech and with the Truman Doctrine in 1947, Stalin’s movement for world domination already had fresh momentum. The Cold War thus began almost immediately after the Yalta appeasement. Many consider the Cold War as World War III.

What was the alternative?

Do nothing.

The US would have defeated Japan by itself. Not recognizing any communist government in Eastern Europe could have sent the signal that no appeasement was forthcoming and that any totalitarian encroachments were not going to be accepted, ever. Containment would have proceeded immediately as it did anyway three years later. The UN would have been for free nations – perhaps a bastion against totalitarianism. Without promised “loot” for attacking Japan, Stalin may not have attacked Japan and hence enthroned Mao. Without that, there is no Korean War and no War in Vietnam. No Cuban revolution. No revolutions in Africa. In some ways, Khrushchev was similar to Gorbachev – an instigator of internal change. He was no angel, but did repudiate Stalin, closed most of the gulag, allowed Eastern Europe greater freedom of action in domestic affairs, and opened up thought and writings – a bit. Without hope for world revolution and further expansion, perhaps the Soviet government would have reached the sclerotic decay stage after Stalin died instead of decades later after only four years of Ronald Reagan. The reinvigorated Reagan containment policy led to rapid downfall of the communist movement and then to the fall of all Stalin’s expansions of the late 1940s. Without Yalta appeasement and ensuing revolutionary momentum, perhaps all this could have occurred in the late 1950s or early 1960s under Khrushchev when containment was also vigorous.

Why Think About This?

Because the appeasement of the totalitarianism of Al Qaeda and Iran will simply be feeding the beast and likely eventually lead to World War IV. Free nations must never, ever appease a totalitarian movement.

PS: I took a class at Harvard as an undergraduate entitled, “Nazi Totalitarianism” in the early 1970s. We read many books, including some fine histories that compared Stalinism and Nazism. That’s where I first read the book, “Totalitarianism”, aforementioned. I re-read that fine book over the past few weeks. That’s an example of how I continued my reading on this subject and the history of Nazism and Communism ever since. I guess that’s what those “broadening” courses are supposed to do. That one worked for me. As did the “History of Inner Asia” course, helping me become familiar with Afghanistan, Tibet and the rest of Central Asia long before they hit the headlines.