Studied by 7 people
Clemenceau motives
Gain territory back
FR + GER fought 2x in 19th century
GER took key areas, inc Alsace-Lorraine
FR feared future GER invasion
GER + FR shared border
Wanted to limit GER military strength
Angry + uncompromising
Majority of Western Front was in FR
Fighting destroyed roads, hospitals, factories
Wanted GER to pay to repair damages + take responsibility for starting war
Wilson motives
Create lasting peace after WW1
ToV should embody ‘14 Points’, including:
Self-determination: all national groups should have own country
All countries follow policy of disarmament to avoid future war
All countries should discuss issues openly, not sign secret treaties
All countries should remove trade tariffs + cooperate economically
New org called League of Nations
Encouraged countries to communicate problems rather than violence + war
Wanted all countries to join LoN
Would support implementation of 14 Points
Wanted trade with GER
Large reparations would damage GER economy
Strong, economically secure GER would help rebuild Europe after WW1
Lloyd George motives
Agreed with aspects of FR’s + USA’s motives
BR had high casualties like FR
BR public hated GER, wanted revenge
Understood some of Clemenceau’s personal anger towards GER
Before WW1, GER challenged BR naval power
From 1884 onwards, BR expanded empire - wanted biggest empire in world
BR supported Wilson’s point that strong GER better for European economies
Prosperous GER would want trade with BR + buy imperial goods
Clemenceau aims
Harsh treaty, including:
High reparations
Protection of FR borders
Splitting GER into states
GER disbanding armed forces to prevent another invasion
Alsace-Lorraine → FR
Saar Basin (rich industrial area) → FR, to rebuild economy
GER overseas colonies → FR
Wilson aims
Soft treaty, including:
Creation of independent states like POL that had access to sea
Alsace-Lorraine → FR
End of GER’s empire + weakening of all empires
Avoid blaming GER for starting WW1 - included not giving GER high reparations
Inclusion of all nations, incl GER, in LoN
Freedom of seas - trading ships should have access to any waters without fear of attack
Lloyd George aims
Fair treaty, including:
Retaining strong trade relationship with GER
GER overseas colonies → BR
Harsh enough terms to satisfy BR desire for revenge
GER keeping military strength to prevent Comm spreading into Europe
Reduction in GER navy to reinforce BR naval supremacy
Summary of differences in aims of Big Three
Clemenceau | Wilson | Lloyd George | |
|---|---|---|---|
Military aims | Harsh | Soft | Moderate |
Territorial aims | Harsh | Moderate | Moderate |
Political and economic aims | Harsh | Soft | Moderate |
Military terms of ToV
Rhineland demilitarised
GER not allowed soldiers in Rhineland → vulnerable to invasion from FR
GER army restricted to 100,000 men
Many ex-soldiers unemployed
GER navy restricted to 6 battleships, no submarines allowed
GER not allowed air force
GER weaker - couldn’t develop military tech other countries had
Territorial terms of ToV
France given Saar, with coalfields, for 15yrs
GER lost 15% of coal resources - affected economy
Alsace-Lorraine → FR
No buffer between GER and FR
Anschluss (union between GER and AUS) forbidden
AUS was part of GER’s cultural identity - many Austrians considered themselves German
GER lost Posen + West Prussia, allowing Allies to create ‘Polish Corridor’, giving POL access to sea
Divided GER in two - ~1m Germans under Polish rule
FR + BR ruled all 11 GER colonies in Africa and Far East as mandates
GER reputation as global power destroyed - fewer items to trade
Political & Economic terms of ToV
LoN created - GER not allowed to join
GER felt excluded from world politics - more likely to resort to violence to solve disputes
War Guilt Clause - GER had to agree they started WW1, made GER accept responsibility for deaths + destruction
Created most anger among GER population - unfair to take all blame for atrocities in WW1
£6.6bn reparations to Allies
Enough to bankrupt GER, especially as territorial terms reduced ability to trade
Military compromises made by Big Three
Clemenceau: Treaty didn’t restrict GER army enough
Wilson: BR naval supremacy → Wilson abandoned idea of free seas
Territorial compromises made by Big Three
Clemenceau: Rhineland not given to FR - demilitarised instead
Wilson: Forced to allow BR + FR to increase empires
Lloyd George: Reluctantly agreed to independence of E European nations like Latvia + Bulgaria
Political & economic compromises made by Big Three
Clemenceau: Wanted higher reparations
Wilson: GER not allowed to join LoN
Lloyd George: Worried about reactions of Germans under control of FR + POL
Why did Big Three have to compromise?
No leader could achieve everything they wanted from ToV because:
Different aims + motives
Different public pressure
BR + FR suffered huge casualties in WW1
Lloyd George won 1918 election on campaign to ‘make Germany pay’
Over 2/3 of FR army died/wounded in WW1 - wanted severe punishment for GER
USA didn’t want revenge on GER because hadn’t suffered as much in WW1
Joined war in 1917, later than other Allies
No fighting occurred on US soil
USA suffered less casualties
Before entering WW1, USA gave loans to Allies
At end of conflict, USA began recalling loans
Repayments made US economy boom
Diktat
Many Germans argued that Weimar Republic shouldn’t have signed ToV
Believed that GER politicians committed ‘stab in the back’
Politicians who signed treaty called ‘November Criminals’
Many GERs felt humiliated + weaker than rest of Europe
GER people + politicians called treaty a ‘diktat’
GER reps not allowed to attend peace talks
GER had to accept terms of peace otherwise Allies would take control of country
Why did War Guilt Clause anger German people?
Not fair to take all of blame for WW1 - other countries were planning for war in 1910s
Why did military restrictions anger German people?
Armed forces were source of pride for GERs
Many GERs felt humiliated + vulnerable to attack
Bitter that rest of Europe not forced to disarm
Why did reparations anger German people?
Thought reparations too high
GER already financially ruined by WW1
From 1922, GER couldn’t pay reparations bill
Why did territorial losses anger German people?
ToV placed GER citizens under rule of other countries
Many felt that Allies had taken away cultural identity
Aims of League of Nations
Solve disputes that would cause armed conflict
Achieve world disarmament
Encourage nations to trade freely with each other
Improve standard of living across the world
Limitations of membership of League
Didn’t contain key countries as members
USA - Senate blocked bill to join
GER - ToV stated it couldn’t join
USSR - not allowed to join due to communist beliefs
BR + FR
Most powerful members of the League
Weakened by WW1
Had other priorities - FR, threat of GER; BR, its Empire
Stopped using League, though League was weak without USA
What stopped USA from joining League?
Idea of LoN unpopular in US
Many citizens didn’t want USA to join WW1
US politicians were isolationists - believed League would drag them into European conflicts
Americans didn’t want to help European nations:
In a war that caused casualties like WW1
Maintain empires - many Americans against idea of empires
Some Americans had German ancestry
Mass emigration from Europe to US before 1914
GER immigrants felt sorry for GER after ToV - supporting LoN would be condoning ToV
US businesses feared League’s impact on trade
League placing sanctions on USA would affect ability to export
Wilson became too ill to run for re-election in 1920
Republican candidate, Harding, campaigned against LoN
Senate voted twice on ToV and US membership to LoN between Nov 1919 and Mar 1920
Wilson failed both times to get Senate’s ratification of bill
Harding became president in 1921
LoN Assembly
Each of 42 founding members had 1 rep
Admitted new members
Policy only passed if all members agreed
Met 1x a year
LoN Council
Smaller organisation
Met 5x a year
Sanctioned, condemned or military stopped aggressive countries
LoN Secretariat
Kept records
Administrated all other orgs within LoN
LoN International Labour Org
Focus on improving working conditions
Discussed with govts, business owners and employees
LoN Agencies
Focused on resolving problems created by WW1 and peace treaties
Mandates commissions
Refugees committee
Slavery commission
Health committee
LoN Permanent Court of Justice
Based in Hague (NED)
Settled legal disputes
Gave legal advice to Council
Strengths of LoN Assembly
All members had one vote - stopped one country from dominating assembly
Strengths of LoN Council
Met 5x a year
Had three options for response:
Moral condemnation: use influence to disapprove of action
Trade sanctions: impose trade boycotts on aggressive countries
Military force: raise army from member nations
Made quicker decisions than Assembly
Strengths of LoN Secretariat
Talented experts in multiple fields worked together
Strengths of LoN Permanent Court of Justice
Well-respected in multiple countries
Member states contributed legal experts to this body
Weaknesses of LoN Assembly
Only met once a year
All members had to agree on actions - slow decision-making
Weaknesses of LoN Council
As permanent members, BR, FR, JAP, ITA used their veto powers
Powerful members blocked actions of other members
Without power of USA, Council’s decisions were weak
Weaknesses of LoN Secretariat
Expensive
Grew too large as League expanded its role
Weaknesses of LoN Permanent Court of Justice
Couldn’t enforce judgements
Why was League’s failure inevitable?
USA absence weakened League
League didn’t have one of most powerful countries as member
USA could ignore economic sanctions / military decisions made by Council
World leaders had different ideas about what League’s role was
Wilson believed that League:
Would work like intl parliament
Should prioritise solving world issues rather than national issues
Lloyd George (BR) believed that League:
Should only meet in emergencies
Could help BR build empire using mandates
Clemenceau (FR) believed that League:
Should protect FR from invasion
Should have large army
Vilna (1920)
Under ToV, Lithuania and POL became independent
Vilna was large city in S Lithuania - people of Vilna wanted to be part of POL instead
POL sent army to capture Vilna, Lithuania appealed to LoN
League response: Demanded POL withdraw troops
Outcome:
Poland refused
Vilna became part of POL
FAILURE
Significance of Vilna dispute
Undermined League’s power
First time that invaded country requested League’s help
League didn’t fulfil pledge for collective security
Showed reluctance of permanent members to raise an army
FR didn’t want to upset POL - saw POL as potential ally
BR didn’t want to act without support of other members
Aaland Islands (1921)
ToV changed countries’ borders in Europe
Both Sweden and Finland wanted to own Aaland Islands
Historically Finnish but population wanted to be part of Sweden
Both countries approached League to investigate and make decision
League response: Aaland Islands should remain Finnish
Outcome:
League insisted that Aaland Islands have no soldiers/weapons
Both Sweden + Finland accepted decision
SUCCESS
Significance of Aaland Islands dispute
One of biggest successes of LoN
If both members respected League, they:
Would ask League for help in dispute
Accept League’s decision
Why did M invade Corfu?
1922 - Fascist leader Mussolini came to power in ITA
Had ambitions to make ITA great - acquiring territory + reviving Roman Empire
Corfu (1923)
1923 - Italian general murdered on Greece-Albania border
M furious - demanded Greece pay ITA 50m Lira compensation + execute murderer
Greece refused
M invaded Corfu in retaliation - Greece appealed to League for help
League’s response: Council told ITA to leave
Outcome:
M demanded that Conference of Ambassadors should decide outcome
Conference ordered Greece to pay ITA compensation
ITA left Corfu
FAILURE
Significance of Corfu dispute
Without USA, League couldn’t stand up to powerful nations like ITA
BR + FR preferred not to get involved in conflict
M had successfully bullied League into giving what he wanted
Showed other aggressive leaders they could manipulate League
Showed that orgs like Conference of Ambassadors could overturn League’s decisions
Bulgaria (1925)
Oct 1925 - shoot-out occurred on border between Greece and Bulgaria, Greek officer killed
In retaliation, Greece invaded Bulgaria
League reacted quickly to news of invasion, called meeting in Paris
League’s response: Ordered Greece to pay £45,000 compensation
Outcome:
Greece complained that League were hypocrites - kinder to ITA in Corfu incident
Greece left Bulgaria
NEITHER
Significance of Bulgaria dispute
Showed inconsistencies of League’s rulings
Both Corfu + Bulgaria disputes:
Involved death of military officer
Resulted in armed invasion of country
League didn’t punish ITA for invading Corfu, yet punished Greece for invading Bulgaria
League desperate not to antagonise certain countries that could start war
→ League didn’t rule fairly in all disputes
Undermined reputation as peacekeeping force
Reason for Refugees Committee
WW1 caused thousands of people to flee homes to escape conflict
Conflict destroyed some areas
→ Many refugees
Aims of Refugees Committee
Send citizens back home, especially in Balkans, Greece, Armenia, Turkey
Improve standards in refugee camps
Successes of Refugees Committee
425,000 displaced people returned to homes/their country
Reduced number of refugees dying from diseases like cholera
Weaknesses of Refugees Committee
Lacked funding needed to solve refugee crisis
Reason for Health Committee
WW1 showed how different healthcare was around the world
Spanish Flu (1918-20) infected 1/3 of population and killed around 50m people
Aims of Health Committee
Eradicate dangerous diseases
Educate general public on hygiene
Work with charities to increase disease prevention
Create medical research projects + institutes
Successes of Health Committee
Worked with non-League countries
Prevented typhoid epidemic in USSR
Established research institutes in London, Copenhagen, Singapore
Introduced vaccines for malaria + killed infected mosquitoes
Weaknesses of Health Committee
Work impacted due to lack of funding during Great Depression (1930s)
Reason for Intl. Labour Org
Poor working standards across world
Rise in communism due to unhappiness of workers
Aims of Intl. Labour Org
Place limits on working hours
Collect data + publish advice on working practices
Improve health + safety in workplace
Successes of Intl. Labour Org
Banned poisonous lead paint
Working week restricted to 48hrs
In 1928, 77 countries agreed to min wage
Collaborated with workers, trade union reps and govts
Weaknesses of Intl. Labour Org
ILO could only recommend, not make laws
Countries rejected ILO’s suggestions, e.g. banning children u14 from working and 8hr working day
Reason for Slavery Commission
European empires not tackling issues of slavery in their colonies, esp. East Africa
Aims of Slavery Commission
Abolish slavery worldwide
Successes of Slavery Commission
Freed 200,000 slaves in Sierra Leone
Organised raids to disrupt Burmese slave traders
Reduced death rate of workers on Tanganyika Railway from 50% to 4%
Weaknesses of Slavery Commission
No agreed procedures for reviewing slavery in countries of member states
Causes of Manchuria
Effect of Great Depression on JAP
JAP population growth
Militaristic culture building in 1920s, shaped by:
Impatience with govt. lack of aggression - military members accused govt. of weakness, and thought authoritarian govt. would serve JAP better
Idolisation of samurai
Manchuria events summary
Mukden incident
Invasion of Manchuria
CHN appealed to League
League issued moral condemnation + appointed Commission to investigate
Commission reported that JAP was guilty
League asked JAP to hand Manchuria back to CHN
JAP refused to hand back Manchuria and pulled out of League in 1933
JAP occupied more CHN cities
JAP made Anti-Comintern Pact with GER and ITA in 1936
Mukden incident
JAP army controlled S Manchurian Railway
Sept 1931 - explosion on railway, JAP blamed CHN (likely staged)
Invasion of Manchuria
JAP army invaded Manchuria and renamed it Manchukuo in 1932
JAP established last Chinese Emperor (overthrown in 1911) as puppet ruler of Manchukuo
Action by League
CHN appealed to LoN - most members disapproved of JAP’s actions, so took the following action:
Issued moral condemnation of JAP and ordered troops to withdraw → JAP refused to comply
Appointed Lytton Commission to investigate
Took a year to complete report, and by then, invasion was almost complete
Commission reported JAP guilty of seizing CHN territory
League accept Lytton’s report and instructed all members not to recognise Manchukuo as legitimate nation + asked JAP to hand Manchuria back to CHN
Why was action so half-hearted?
Clear next step was economic sanctions, but countries suffering from World Economic Crisis didn’t want to damage industries + create more underemployment by refusing trade with CHN
BR + FR didn’t want military action - JAP was dangerous enemy; proved military power in successful war vs RUS (1905) + seized GER possessions in Pacific in WWI
US was most powerful nation with influence in Far East, but wasn’t League member
Consequences of Manchuria
JAP refused to return Manchuria + left League in 1933
JAP occupied more N Chinese provinces from 1933-36
Showed LoN’s weakness against aggressive nations
People looking on (Mussolini, Hitler) learnt that acts of aggression paid off
Causes of Abyssinia
ITA suffering from Depression, leading to 2 issues:
Rising underemployment = M’s popularity potentially threatened
Foreign conquest distracts attention from domestic problems
ITA short of raw materials
ITA owned Eritrea + Italian Somaliland, either side of ABYS
ITA tried to take ABYS previously (1896) but were defeated → chance for revenge
M encouraged by Manchuria - saw League failing
H growing in power and popularity + rearming - M’s role as leading European dictator was threatened
Events summary
Wal Wal incident
League played for time
ITA invasion of ABYS
League’s response
Hoare-Laval Pact
End for ABYS
Wal Wal incident
Dec 1934 - dispute between ITA and ABYS soldiers, 80km away from Italian Somaliland
M claimed it was ITA territory, demanded apology and prepared for invasion
Emperor Haile Selassie appealed to League
League played for time
Set up Committee to investigate Wal Wal (playing for time)
LoN ballot in BR showed majority favoured military action against M if necessary
Committee took 8 months to report that Wal Wal incident was neither side’s fault + put plan forward to give part of ABYS to ITA
M rejected this
Why didn’t League act immediately?
Close to home - FR bordered ITA + BR colonies of Uganda, British Somaliland and Kenya bordered Abyssinia
BR + FR desperate to avoid conflict - war would have direct impact
Fear of Hitler - BR + FR wanted M as ally vs Germany, were negotiating Stresa Pact with ITA (1935), condemning German rearmament
Possible that BR + FR ignored Abyssinia in return for joining pact
Depression - BR + FR economies still down; wars are expensive
Invasion of Abyssinia
Oct 1935 - M ordered full scale invasion of ABYS
Abyssinians on horseback vs ITA tanks, bombs and poison gas
League’s response
Committee set up to consider sanctions - while they slowly decided, M imported whatever raw materials he could
Why did League hesitate?
Economic sanctions damaged jobs in League’s member states at time of economic hardship + underemployment
Banning coal exports to ITA would cost 30,000 British miners’ jobs
Fear of war with ITA
Hoare-Laval Pact
BR + FR foreign ministers, Hoare and Laval, came up with plan to give 2/3 of ABYS to ITA in return for cancelling invasion
Pact leaked to French press + caused outrage
Selassie demanded debate in League about it
Sanctions committee reported - banning coal sales would exhaust M’s supply in 2 months, which would’ve stopped invasion
By then, most of ABYS had been taken over
End for Abyssinia
Mar 1936 - H marched troops into Rhineland (broke terms of ToV)
FR wanted ITA’s help against H and thought the price was handing ABYS to M
May 1936 - ITA troops entered ABYS capital + Selassie went into exile
9 May - M announced annexation of ABYS
Nov 1936 - M signed Rome-Berlin Axis with H
BR + FR’s policy towards ITA (M becoming ally vs H) was proven wrong
Consequences of Abyssinia
Nations everywhere concluded there was no point placing hope in League’s system for protection
BR + FR lost face - could’ve stopped invasion with different decisions
M gained prestige
Real winner was H
Why did weaknesses in League’s organisation and membership make failure inevitable?
USA absence weakened League
League didn’t have one of most powerful countries as member
USA could ignore economic sanctions / military decisions made by Council
World leaders had different ideas about what League’s role was
Wilson believed that League:
Would work like intl parliament
Should prioritise solving world issues rather than national issues
Lloyd George (BR) believed that League:
Should only meet in emergencies
Could help BR build empire using mandates
Clemenceau (FR) believed that League:
Should protect FR from invasion
Should have large army
Weaknesses in structure
Assembly
Slow decision-making (all members had to agree)
Only met once a year
Council
BR, FR, JAP, ITA used veto powers
Powerful members blocked actions of other members
Without USA, Council’s decisions were weak
Secretariat
Expensive
Grew too large as League expanded its role
Permanent Court of Justice
Couldn’t enforce judgements
How important was League’s humanitarian work? (successes)
Refugees Committee
425,000 displaced people return to homes/their country
Reduced refugee deaths from diseases like cholera
Health Committee
Worked with non-League countries
Prevented typhoid epidemic in USSR
Established research institutes in London, Copenhagen, Singapore
Introduced vaccines for malaria + killed infected mosquitoes
Intl. Labour Org
Banned poisonous lead paint
Working week restricted to 48hrs
In 1928, 77 countries agreed to min wage
Collaborated with workers, trade union reps and govts
Slavery Commission
Freed 200,000 slaves in Sierra Leone
Organised raids to disrupt Burmese slave traders
Reduced death rate of workers on Tanganyika Railway from 50% to 4%
How important was League’s humanitarian work? (weaknesses)
Refugees Committee
Lacked funding needed to solve refugee crisis
Health Committee
Work impacted due to lack of funding during Great Depression (1930s)
Intl. Labour Org
ILO could only recommend, not make laws
Countries rejected ILO’s suggestions, e.g. banning children u14 from working and 8hr working day
Slavery Commission
No agreed procedures for reviewing slavery in countries of member states
Not all countries agreed
How did Depression make League’s work more difficult in 1930s?
Caused rise in:
Extremism
Aggressive foreign policy with no interest in LoN
Leaders prioritised own country and began ignoring duties to LoN
Militarism
Went against League’s core aim of disarmament
League had to stop aggressive nations
League lacked USA military force
Rearmament
GER breaking ToV
Have to deal with strong GER force
Causes of hostility between US and USSR
Ideological gap between communism and capitalist democracy
Interwar years
Wartime experience
Ideological differences between USA and USSR
USA | USSR |
|---|---|
Capitalist - business/property privately owned | Communist - all industry owned by state |
Democracy - govt chosen in free democratic elections | One-party dictatorship - held elections - all candidates from Comm Party |
World’s wealthiest country - still had extremes, great wealth and great poverty | Economic superpower because industry grew rapidly in 1920s and 30s but general standard of living in USSR much lower than USA |
Americans believed being free of control by govt was more important than equality | Comms saw individual rights less important than good of society as whole |
Americans believed other countries should be run in American way | Soviet leaders believed other countries should be run Communist way |
Effect of interwar years on US-Soviet Alliance
BR, FR, USA sent troops to help Whites in RUS Civil War
Churchill hated and feared Comm
Throughout 1920s, BR, USA and FR govts spoke of ‘Red Scare’ + persecuted known communists as possible Soviet agents
Nazi-Soviet Pact shocked politicians in West
S prop also spread fear + distrust of Western ‘capitalist’ powers
1930s plans to industrialise USSR spurred by paranoia about West
S was critical of Appeasement in 1930s, thinking they were motivated by desire to have H as ally against Comm - resulted in Nazi-Soviet Pact
Effect of wartime experience on US-Soviet Alliance
USSR suffered terribly in war: 20-24m Russians died
Paid greater price for defeat of Nazism than W Allies
W Allies had less casualties
W Allies had no fighting on their soil
S wanted W Allies to open 2nd Front against GER in Europe to relieve pressure on USSR
Grand Alliance in WW2
Involved USA, USSR, BR
United in WW2 to defeat Axis powers of GER + JAP
Members suspicious of each other
Comm + USSR strength concerned BR + USA
Historians call Grand Alliance ‘marriage of convenience’
Worked together to defeat common enemy
Once achieved, nothing left to keep them together
After defeat of Axis powers by Aug 1945, political atmosphere changed
‘Old powers’ like BR + FR decreased in power
New ‘superpowers’ of USA + USSR increased in power
Grand Alliance members’ approaches
Roosevelt: accept USSR as superpower + partner to ensure world peace + prevent war
Churchill: belief in BR Empire meant he was suspicious of S + spread of Comm
Stalin: believed that West wanted to destroy Comm
Truman (after 1945): Less friendly with S than Roosevelt; adopted ‘get tough’ approach to USSR
Attlee (after 1945): more left-wing, so more inclined to Stalin than Churchill
Yalta Peace Conference date
Feb 1945 (few months before end of WW2)
Aims of Big Three at Yalta
Roosevelt: wanted USSR to confirm support in war vs JAP and be part of UN
Churchill: wanted free elections to be held in Central + Eastern Europe after war
Stalin: wanted to keep territory gained between USSR + GER
Agreements at Yalta
After defeat, GER would pay $20bn reparations
GER to be split into four occupation zones
USSR agreed to fight vs JAP
USSR agreed that free elections would be held in E Europe
USSR would gain land from POL + free elections held to decide its govt - main area of disagreement
UN to be established, but not all 16 members of USSR to be given individual membership
How did Yalta affect US-Soviet Alliance?
Positive impact because:
USSR declared war on JAP in Aug 1945
USSR would gain half of the $20bn reparations
Three main states of USSR - Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, joined UN
S agreed to free elections in E Europe
Events between Yalta and Potsdam
Roosevelt died - Truman replaced him as USA Pres
Truman wanted tougher approach to S
Attlee replaced Churchill following election
Germany surrender in May 1945
No longer had common enemy
USA had developed atomic bomb
Told BR but not USSR - S suspicious of USA
51 members had joined UN
Potsdam Peace Conference date
Aug 1945 (end of WW2)
Aims of Big Three at Potsdam
Truman: wanted to ensure peace in Europe + prevent spread of Comm
Attlee: wanted free elections held in Central + Eastern Europe after war
Stalin: wanted to ensure USSR remained powerful in E Europe
Agreements at Potsdam
GER’s four zones would be controlled by USSR, USA, BR, FR
Berlin also divided into four zones
USSR would receive 25% industrial equipment from other three zones in GER
Nazi party banned + war criminals to be prosecuted
GER/POL border fixed on Oder-Neisse line - major concession made by W Allies to S
How did Potsdam affect US-Soviet Alliance?
Negative impact because:
Development of atomic bomb increased tensions between both countries
S wanted harsher reparations against GER (USSR suffered greatly in WW2)
Truman wanted to protect GER economy
USSR’s control over E Europe concerned Truman
Believed that S was spreading Comm
S wanted to keep Red Army in E Europe as protection against future threats
Atomic bomb
Aug 1945 - USA dropped two atomic bombs in JAP
1st Hiroshima
2nd Nagasaki
Killed roughly 200,000 JAP civilians
Note 
Flashcard (80)