• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Why Did The Wartime Alliance Break Down?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Why Did The Wartime Alliance Break Down? By the end of the Second World War, there were three main victors, Britain, The United States Of America and the Soviet Union. At the start of the Second World War, this, "Big Three", had one united goal; to bring down Germany, as it was threatening both the Capitalist West and Communist East. However, even though all three leaders; Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin were allies in their goal, it does not mean that their relationship was a happy one, but they had to work together to defeat the Nazi Germany regime. After Germany was defeated, The Big Three met up on several occasions to deal with the aftermath of the war. At this time, their true motives came to be shown. Even during the war, there was already underlying tensions between the East and West countries, but they were forced to cooperate in an, "Marriage of Convenience". As soon as their mutual enemy was defeated, tensions rose. When examining the reasons in why the Alliance broke down, there were a number of long term and short term causes. The East and West had two completely different ideologies, which would present itself as a issue. ...read more.

Middle

The Nazi Soviet packed aided the suspicions towards Stalin from America and Britain. In 1939, Stalin and Hitler signed the Nazi Soviet Aggression Pact. They agreed not to fight each other. This pact was supposed to last for ten years but only lasted for two. Both countries then decided that they would split Poland between them in secret. This pact outraged Britain and France. This was an act of backstabbing, the fact that a so called ally had gone and signed and pact with the enemy. Stalin signed this pact for many reasons, including that he didn't think that Britain and France were strong enough to oppose Hitler. Also one of Stalin's goals was to take over the Baltic States in Poland, in which he hoped to achieve by signing the pact. Furthermore, by signing the pact, it would delay Germany's attack on the USSR, thus giving Stalin time to prepare. Naturally, now there was a great deal of mistrust towards Stalin for this act of betrayal. A short term reason for the breakdown of the alliance was a new hard-line attitude which was adopted by America at Potsdam in 1945. Nazi Germany was now defeated, other issues were now a priority. However tensions at this conference were not helped by America. President Roosevelt had died in April of 1945. ...read more.

Conclusion

The West didn't believe this and the Soviet Union was seen as merciless. In conclusion, a mixture of the Allies actions all led to the breakdown of the Alliance. There was a great sense of misjudgement and misassumptions from all sides which planted seeds of betrayal in each of the Allies minds; Britain and France mistrusted Stalin, while Stalin mistrusted Britain and France. The Alliance was never going to be a strong successful bond in the first place, as none of the Allies involved thought the opposition were truly trustworthy. The breakdown of the alliance was inevitable. The allies had opposing ideologies which conflicted with eachother, therefore it was nearly impossible for them to get along and compromise.. The allies each felt feelings of suspicion, fear and mistrust because of their opposing ideologies. The countries involved in the alliance had all in previous years done actions which created unkind feelings towards each others countries, such as the USSR's heartless actions in watching the Poles be crushed by Germany, and also the fact that USSR was not allowed into the League Of Nations, which was constructed by the USA. Therefore I am concluding with a post-revisionist point of view, that there was no sole country responsible for the breakdown of the alliance, but all the countries, the incapability of compromise and opposing ideologies all added to the unavoidable collapse of the alliance. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Other Historical Periods section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Other Historical Periods essays

  1. What was the short term significance of the Amritsar Massacre?

    of nationalism, which was significant in changing the relationship between Britain and India. The Amritsar Massacre and the treatment of Dyer had convinced all Indians that the whole British people stood behind the inhumanity of Dyer and no fair treatment of India could be expected from them20; however, this is not to say that all British people supported Dyer.

  2. The First English Civil War

    of Sir John Hotham, the governor, and his son, the commander of the Lincolnshire Parliamentarians. The latter had been placed under arrest at the instance of Cromwell and of Colonel John Hutchinson, the governor of Nottingham Castle; he escaped to Hull, but both father and son were seized by the citizens and afterwards executed.

  1. How were the lives of Civilians affected by the Second World War

    Source 15 is a letter from Humphrey Jennings to his wife. There letter would be private and therefore reliable to an extent, but he may have exaggerated the situation to reassure his probably evacuated wife that spirits were high. Source 16 is a report by local officials on the damages to the East-End of London.

  2. The cult of Stalin and the purges of the 1930(TM)s were two aspects of ...

    for this reason Stalin's aides fixed the vote to ensure a draw between the two candidates. Due to this result, the position of General Secretary was abolished and Kirov and Stalin shared the position of Secretary of Equal Rank. Knowing that his prot�g� was favoured above him caused an increase

  1. How valid is the view that short term causes were more important than long ...

    Hitler changed the name of the Nazi party from the D.A.P, the German Workers Party to the N.S.D.A.P the National Socialist German Workers Party. He drew up the 25 point party programme, which was largely negative and was anti-Weimar, anti-capitalist, anti-communist, anti-Semitic and promoting Lebensraum (living space)

  2. The structures of the Soviet State were created by Lenin and abused by Stalin. ...

    There are several points of continuity and discontinuity between both Leninism and Stalinism, judging them fairly, however, is difficult due to the lack of archival evidence preceding 1991. When taking into consideration many Western historian's views (also known as those being 'politically Centre-Right Liberal to Conservative's), Leninism is judged equally

  1. A direct comparison of the role of central power and control during the late ...

    were as much influenced by central power and control as they enforced it . Russia was controlled by 'a regime of unheard of terror achieved through an extraordinary centralised and ramified apparatus,'8 in that the main method of providing this terror was so large and dominant that it was considered a 'state within a state'.

  2. Could The Division Of Germany Been Avoided In 1949?

    I personally believe that in this case, the West were right, Stalin did want to spread communism throughout Germany so therefore, by holding out, they tried to stop it. Also it was a sly tactic that the Soviets used by trying to get France and Italy to mistrust America.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work