Origins of the Cold War 1941-45 - The 'Liberation' of Eastern Europe

How were France and the Benelux countries liberated at the end of the Second World War? How might this have affected tensions between East and West?

Western powers drove out German forces from France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg and the pre-war governments were quickly restored to power. This doesn’t necessarily raise tensions in the Grand Alliance but certainly outlines the differences in ideas of ‘liberation’ between the two sides, with Stalin determined to place Pro-Soviet governments in the country it ‘liberated.’

How was Czechoslovakia ‘liberated’ by the USSR?

The Czechoslovak government in exile was willing to acquiesce in Soviet plans as they mistrusted the West following the Munich Agreement 1938. Benes signed the Treaty of Friendship with Stalin that guaranteed the Communist party would have primary importance in the post war government even though they were not particularly popular. The Communists main rival was banned and Stalin annexed part of Czechoslovakia (Rothenia) so that the USSR shared a land border with Hungary. Benes took office in April 1945, leading the most pro-Soviet government in Eastern Europe.

What was the impact of Stalin’s ‘liberation’ of Czechoslovakia that involved greater influence of the communist party and annexation?

Increases tensions in the Grand Alliance as it makes Stalin’s expansionist ambitions and denial of free and fair elections clear and the land border with Hungary meant Stalin had wider access to spread communism further across Eastern Europe. The West would have perceived this as a denial of fair elections and would certainly not have seen it as ‘liberation,’ but rather as Stalin posing a significant expansionist threat.

How did the Soviets ‘liberate’ Hungary at the end of the Second World War?

The Red army entered Hungary in 1944, fighting German and Hungarian forces. Hungarian forces were ultimately unable to resist the Soviets and military operations ceased in April 1945. As they advanced, the Soviet handed control of liberated territories to a coalition of partices, the largest of which being the peasant Smallholders party. Soviet troops remained in Hungary after the war.
- Such a military operation and control may have been an act of revenge as the Hungarian forces joined with the Germans in invading the USSR in 1941.

How might the ‘liberation’ of Hungary in this way have impacted tensions within the Grand Alliance?

Would have raised tensions as while they were allowing a coalition government, the West would have been apprehensive about what their plans were and wary about the military presence after the war.

How was Romania ‘liberated’ at the end of the Second World War?

Like Hungary, Romania had been a German ally and had occupied Soviet territory in the Crimea after 1941. In 1944, there was a coup by King Michael, which ousted the fascist Iron Guard regime and negotiated an armistice. The Soviets promoted the interests of the Romanian Communist Party and with the presence of the Red Army in Romania, forced King Michael to appoint the pro-Soviet Groza as PM, solidifying communist influence and control.

How did the Soviet liberation of Romania affect tensions within the Grand Alliance?

This would have raised tensions as it was a complete denial and betrayal of Stalin’s promise to FDR and Churchill at Yalta of free and fair elections and it was clear that Stalin was using intimidation of the threat of his army to get his way, with exerting his influence over existing governments, in direct opposition to the democracy held in the West and the Western approach to liberation in Western Europe.

What was the Soviet approach to ‘liberating’ Bulgaria?

In September 1944, communist partisans had liberated the capital and the Red Army was generally welcomed by the population. In the armistice, Soviet troops occupied the entire country and the territories of Bessarabia and north Bukovina were annexed by the Soviets.

How might the ‘liberation’ of Bulgaria have caused increased tensions within the Grand Alliance?

Contributed to expansion of the USSR across Eastern Europe, though because there was no enforcement of a communist government at this point, tensions may not have been increased to the same extent as Stalin’s actions in Hungary or Romania because Bulgaria were more welcoming of a pro-soviet government and the presence of the army.

How was Yugoslavia ‘liberated’? Would this have increased tensions in the Grand Alliance?

Yugoslavia had already been liberated by communist partisans led by Tito. The Red Army didn’t stay in the country and Stalin was happy with a fellow communist to form the government. Likely would not have increased tensions in the Grand Alliance to the same extent as other takeovers like in Romania or Hungary as it didn’t occur on Stalin’s command or occupation but a choice of the governments in Yugoslavia.

How was Finland ‘liberated’ by the USSR?

Finland left the Axis Powers in 1944 and by doing this, they accepted the provisions of the Treaty of Moscow which gave the USSR large areas of Finnish territory. The Communist Party was legalised and PM Paasikivi, though not a communist, conducted a foreign policy which was in line with Soviet interests.

How might this ‘liberation’ of Finland impacted tensions within the Grand Alliance?

The West may have disliked that the USSR were able to significantly increase their territorial gain and therefore the influence that they had. However, it would not have been seen as a forceful takeover as it was based on a pre-agreed treaty and the Finnish people could still elect their own PM.

Why might it have been more difficult for Stalin to gain control or influence in Poland than other countries and why would he have particularly wanted control of Poland?

It was the hope in Poland that they would be able to gain support from the Western Allies to resurrect the pre-war Polish republic. There was very minimal support for the Polish Communist Party in Poland and its leadership had largely been executed during Stalin’s purges in the 1930s. There was also mistrust towards Stalin after the Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1939 and his ruthless actions in Eastern Poland, having deported 1.5 million Poles to Gulag Camps in Siberia and the Katyn Massacre, in which the bodies of thousands of Polish officers were found in Katyn, which had been under Soviet control from 1939 to 1941. The Katyn Massacre turned the government in exile against Stalin, which forced Stalin to search for other ways to seize influence. Furthermore, in 1944, members of the Polish Home Army were often arrested by the NKVD.

Why would Stalin have wanted to gain control or influence in Poland in particular? How was Poland ‘liberated’?

Poland would be the most important country in his buffer zone and so Stalin was determined to ensure a Soviet-friendly government.
July 1944 - Soviets called on the populace in Warsaw to rise in Revolt — the Polish Home Army attempted to seize Warsaw as the Germans were retreating and felt that they could liberate Warsaw and gain the London Poles greater influence in the capital, before the Red Army arrived. The Home Army occupied most of the city in three days.
In response, Stalin deliberately halted the advance of the Red Army and refused to allow Allied planes to deliver supplies and he disarmed Polish units on their way to Warsaw. His actions allowed the Germans to regroup and crush the rising, destroying hopes for an Independent Poland as the Home Army surrendered Warsaw.
At the end of the war, it was agreed at Yalta that the USSR would gain territory from Eastern Poland but that Poland would be compensated by pushing the Polish-German border West.

How did Stalin’s actions in Poland nearing the end of the war impact East-West relations?

Majorly increased tensions - Britain entered the war in defence of Polish independence and Soviet actions had destroyed the possibility of such independence. The Polish were forced from one dictator to the next and were very much the sacrifice of the West appeasing Stalin and ensuring he remained in the Grand Alliance.
Though there wasn’t an immediate consequence in the Grand Alliance, with Churchill unable to confront Stalin when he visited Moscow in late 1944 nor at the Yalta Conference - likely as both Churchill and FDR knew they still needed Soviet strength, it outlines the differences in the liberation of East and West, ideological differences in the Grand Alliance and reflects Stalin’s true, expansionist ambitions for Poland, threatening democracy upheld by the West.

Overall, how may the ‘liberation’ of Eastern Europe be seen to lead to the breakdown of the Grand Alliance an important pre-text for the beginning of the Cold War?

• Stalin’s actions were not seen by the West as merely an attempt to protect the USSR from a future German attack but as a pretext for expansion and even as an attempt to create global communism

• Tensions created as the West failed to see or understand the scale of Soviet sacrifice during WW2 in terms of manpower and its economy and therefore their need for reparations

• USSR failed to keep some of the promises made at Yalta and Potsdam and so the conferences and agreements made can be seen as doing little to ease tensions

• Stalin’s desire for pro-Soviet regimes in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and presence of Soviet troops in Germany - increased tensions as West worried about such a large force and the fear that Soviet power would spread even further West

• Outlines issues with opposing ideologies - USSR as seizing sphere of influence through force or placing communist-leaning leaders in charge or directly opposing independence, as in Poland and denial of free elections in Poland and Romania — directly contradicted ideals of democracy from the West.

• Tensions over the Soviet liberation of Eastern Europe remained unresolved by 1945 and would only worsen. Differing concepts of freedoom and democracy and the attitudes of the two sides towards liberation showed the gulf between the two sides and led to long-term hostility — seemed to be a betrayal of the reasons for war against Germany