Talk:Yalta Conference

Solzhenitsyn's Verdict
In their native countries, Roosevelt and Churchill are regarded as examples of wise statesmen. But we, during our jail conversations, were astonished by their constant shortsightedness and even stupidity. How could they, retreating gradually from 1941 to 1945, leave Eastern Europe without any guarantees of independence? How could they abandon the large territories of Saxony and Thuringia in return for such a ridiculous toy as the four-zoned Berlin that, moreover, was later to become their Achille’s heel? And what kind of military or political purpose did they see in giving away hundreds of thousands of armed Soviet citizens (who were unwilling to surrender, whatever the terms) for Stalin to have them killed? It is said that by doing this, that they secured the imminent participation of Stalin in the war against Japan. Already armed with the Atomic bomb, they did pay for Stalin so that he wouldn’t refuse to occupy Manchuria to help Mao Zedong to gain power in China and Kim Il Sung, to get half of Korea!… Oh, misery of political calculation!

When later Mikolajczyk was expelled, when the end of Beneš and Masaryk came, Berlin was blocked, Budapest was in flames and turned silent, when ruins fumed in Korea and when the conservatives fled from Suez – didn’t really some of those who had a better memory, recall for instance the episode of giving away the Cossacks?

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago, Part I, ch 6 (‘That Spring’)


 * Roosevelt cared about saving American lives, he didn't care about Saxony or Koenigsberg or Cossack turncoats; the atomic bomb wasn't a sure bet to succeed the way it did.


 * U.S. military estimated one million American casualties if they had to invade the Japanese homeland.


 * Churchill was more suspicious of Stalin but the U.K. didn't have the influence to dictate terms, the Red Army was closing in on Berlin, Stalin had the upper hand, that's why he knew he could insist on the conference being held in his sphere of influence. Hindsight is always 20/20.Historian932 (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mountbatten?
is it Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma turning his face on the picture? Agathoclea 13:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

another picture credits him as Sir Charles Portal Agathoclea 14:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Forced labor
John Dietrich, The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (2002) ISBN 1-892941-90-2 States that the protocol contained provisions for reparations in the form of forced labor. Yalta protocol: "2. Reparations in kind is to be extracted from Germany in three following forms:...(c) Use of German Labor"

This is confirmed by Winston Churchill in his War Cabines minutes. War cabinet Minutes

In the meeting on May 18th 1945, the U.K. Prime Minister Winston Churchill discusses the amount of German labour they will request for use in the British agriculture. In the meeting on June 11th 1945 they discuss the provisions made for Slave Labour in the Yalta protocol, and how many slaves the Russians should get.


 * Ch. a) Only reparations worth havg = G. export markets.

Directive takes a/c of that, but shd. state it specifically. b) Also wd. like to omit last sentence in para 15. If we count against R. claim the labour they take, we cd. get the total figure up to $20 billion. $16.000 m. value cd. be assigned for 4 m. slave labour.


 * P.M.

At Yalta R. made it clear tht. their claim was exclusive of labour.


 * In the winter of 1946/47 former U.S. president Herbert Hoover had been sent on a fact finding mission to Germany by President Harry S. Truman. In February 28, 1947 he published a situation report on Germany, where it was estimated that 4,160,000 German former prisoners of war, by General Eisenhower relabeled as Disarmed Enemy Forces in order to negate the Geneva convention, were used as forced labor in work camps outside Germany: 3,000,000 in Russia, 750,000 in France, 400,000 in Britain and 10,000 in Belgium.


 * Dietrich states that more than 1,000,000 German Prisoners of War were after the war ended forced to work in French coal-mines and Brittish agriculture, as well as 500,000 in U.S. run Military Labor Service Units in occupied Germany itself. Dietrich also states that roughly 3,000,000 former prisoners of war suffered terribly in work camps in the Soviet Union in the following years, as well as a number of German civilians (for the fate of the civilians, se Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union)

In view of this I think that the forced labor part of the Yalta protocol deserves to be listed, along with all the other things the Allies agreed upon. Stor stark7 15:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Stalin's intentions?
Seems to me the comment about Stalin's intentions re: Poland are a rather strong accusation without being backed by a reference. Stalin was no democrat, but did he actually renege on the elections before Truman, Churchill, and later Attlee started trying to break the Yalta agreements? I don't know that this would have changed anything, but it at least deserves mention in the interests of NPOV.--Eric 12:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

vandals
potentially imperialist paws You da man conference Again long and tiring trips...

This article is vandalised in my opinion, and I don't know where to start. Could anyone with sincere intentions and experience with this topic please step in? Yeah fools that no cool.

to the vandals
These men, positivly imperial pieces, bent the world to war and back again. And now we look back with 20/20 vision, through looking glasses that are less then perfect, giving us a vision of the past that must be tainted by our hearts and by those hands that made those hearts participate in those deeds. So surely those same hands and hearts would have did what they could to make us think they weren't so evil. But we must see the deeds reactions and events in what we live today. Their greed and haterd can be seen still revirberating through our world. Surely the wars in the Middle East today are the symptoms of the sickness that was those wars in our past. And so every conflict that each hand carries on, must be an echo of the past.--12.218.98.165 03:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)--12.218.98.165 03:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)david saylor

Regarding "Greed and Hatred" comment of Mr. Saylor
To say that the men who fought and defeated Nazism and Facism in WWII were acting out of "greed and hatred" is to ignore the history that followed the end of WWII. Save the Soviet Union, all nations who fought and conquered the tyrannical regimes of the Axis Powers held no territory for themselves at the end of the war. If they were so greedy and filled with hate, why didn't they keep the territories they had conquered? In fact, they did the opposite. Do you not remember the Marshall Plan? The civilized nations of the world that had fought for the freedom of citizens not their own used their resources and money to rebuild all of Europe, including Germany, the enemy they had defeated. And in the Pacific, the United States rebuilt the civilization of our most hated enemy of the time, Japan, which is now one of the most democratic and most powerful nations on the planet. And what did these powers do once they had rebuilt these war-torn nations? They left and let those societies determine their own destinys. To say that these actions were the work of men filled with hate and greed is to look blindly at history and to ignore the good-will and self-sacrifice of the Allies before and after WWII.

The one glaring mistake that the Allies did make at the end of the war was allowing the Soviet Union to expand its empire by keeping the territories it had conquered during the war. The West failed the nations of eastern Europe by not standing up to the Soviets and forcing them to return to their pre-war borders. I do believe that this inaction of the West was do mostly to war-weariness, but they should have stood up nonetheless. Bulloba 17:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Bailey Bullock 7-21-2006

Far East Implications
The current article is very much in need of major revisions. It does not touch in itself on epochal decisions affecting China and Korea. Stalin received concessions for the Soviet Union which Russia lost in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05, presumably under the rubric of 'rectifying Japanese aggression' historically, but in fact these were conceded to him by Roosevelt and Churchill out of Chinese sovereignty, territory, and independence: without so much as a "by-your-leave" to the National Government of the Republic of China.

The occupation of the Chinese Northeast (Manchuria), and the division of Korea, is well-recognized (as the cite from Solzhenitsyn's work shows) to have set up the renewal of the Chinese Civil War between the Nationalist and Communist Parties, and to have provided the latter with signal advantages never before available to it, as well as to set the stage for the Korean War of 1950-53. The subsequent military conquest of mainland China has obviously had worldwide implications and is of course outside the scope of an article on Yalta, but such a piece in an 'encyclopedia' must be further edited and expanded if a true picture of the seeds of disaster sown at this session is to emerge clearly, both in Europe and in Asia.

It probably also needs to be pointed out that not only was President Roosevelt within weeks of his death, but that his own intense preoccupation with gaining Stalin's assistance in the Pacific War may well have been poisonously influenced by Soviet agent Alger Hiss's role in the underlying staff activities. Yes, FDR was duly concerned about the potential costs in US casualties for an invasion of Japan given the experience during island hopping; and yes, it now seems it was the Soviet entry into the war 3 months after the German surrender on May 8th which provided more of a psychological blow to the Japanese militarists (and apparently decisively so to Hirohito himself) than even the atom bombing of Nagasaki after Hiroshima (!!) -- but much of Asia has paid a heavy price indeed for Yalta, the most recent lineal descendant event having been the Cambodian holocaust, and now we face the potential prospect of nuclear war in Korea...

And, yes, the initial mistakes at Yalta might not have persisted if the Truman Administration and Secretary of State Dean Acheson were clearer about the stakes: but the odds had to be stacked against blatant policy reversals in either Europe or Asia for a woefully untried and uninformed President, inheriting a perspective seeing the Georgian as "Uncle Joe"

Twcy80201 18:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Photography of the "big three"
There are currently two similar pictures on the top of the article (one colour, the other B&W). Is there any reason for that? I was about to remove one of them, but I don't know which one to keep (the B&W seems better to me, because Stalin is looking away on the colour shot). What do you think?CyrilB 22:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I´ve just noticed that the main photography of the article seems to be photoshoped, can anyone confirm this? The guy behind WC, seems too out of place, not only by the quality of that part of the image but also the light and his clothes. I guess that this one (http://content.answcdn.com/main/content/img/getty/6/5/2642765.jpg) is probably the real one. (Looks like Charles Portal, anyways) Marcio Ikematsu (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll be darned. I think you're right. The chest full of medals also seems out of place. Yaush (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For reference: Files_for_deletion/2011_April_7 Agathoclea (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Images
I think the images used for this article are too similar. And the video, as cool as it is, doesn't bring much new to the table. Brutannica 07:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Song
For a somewhat lighter touch to our discussions, I have translated a song by Jacek Kaczmarski, a famous Polish poet and singer. See here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Percentages Agreement
Is there an article on Wikipedia about the Percentages Agreement between Churchill and Stalin, mentioned in this article? Vints 11:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is but i don't know how to add it: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ro/6/69/Churchill_si_crucificarea_Romaniei.jpg Romania: Russia - 90%, others - 10%; Greece: Great Britain - 90%, Russia - 10%; Yugoslavia - 50-50%; Hungary - 50-50%; Bulgaria: Russia - 75%, others - 25%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.40.240.184 (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In Yalta, Stalin might not have been Stalin
According to this article, it might have been Mr. Felix Dadaev - one of Stalin's body doubles.

Look at his ears on the photos, they're too small to be Stalin's. At the guy actually looks extremely harmless - hardly the type to have killed millions.

Hmm... did neither Roosevelt nor Churchill notice the difference?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.168.129 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. I'm sure there's ample historical evidence somewhere that Joseph Stalin, the absolute autocrat, chose to send someone else in his place to meet, talk with and deal with the leaders of America and Britain. Even without historical evidence, it is quite clear that something like this happened. (Also, from all of Churchill's wartime pictures, it is evident what kind of destitution Great Britain suffered, lacking even basic stuff. Winston Churchill could only afford a seven-year old as his double.) -The Gnome (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Article opinions
This article has lots of one sided opinions and should be labeled as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.240.159 (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfounded defamation conceals important opinion
It is possible that Roosevelt's failing health (Yalta was his last major conference before dying of cerebral hemorrhage) was partially to blame for such poor judgment.

This is quite an accusation! (And, indeed, a NPOV violation.) This sentence is constructed to introduce the idea of Roosevelt's "poor judgement" as fact in contrast to its claimed cause of "failing health" as possibility. Neither are certainties. We ought to provide a space for such theories if we are to be encyclopaedic, but we can do that without being condemnatory ourselves. I've not edited this yet because I don't want to be censoring and am yet to decide my wording and where in the article my words should go, but we can do better than this. (Logosen (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

I agree. Before advancing theories from anti-Roosevelt conservatives, the article should explain how Roosevelt's supporters defended the agreement. The agreement divided Europe between East and West based primarily on where the two sides' armies happened to be when the agreement was made. Considering the strength of Communists in Western Europe, all of the continent may have ended up in the Soviet sphere. --The Four Deuces (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree this whole section is pretty POV. I'm removing the part about his health causing poor judgement, which is probably the most POV part.  I also added a paragraph partially giving Roosevelt's reasoning.  KenFehling (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, but the paragraph you just slapped in its place about Nagasaki/Hiroshima was completely out of place in the midst of that text as well (not that it was necessarily wrong).Mosedschurte (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree the whole thing strings together a little awkwardly, but I didn't really want to butcher too much of it right now. I believe the problem stems from a short paragraph that discusses relative military strength in Europe.  I actually think that's the paragraph that's out of place; the 3 paragraphs around it are pretty cohesive.  The one I inserted responds to the claim made in the paragraph above it, that many Americans feel Roosevelt was a "sellout." The paragraph above that talks about the USSR entering the war in the Pacific. KenFehling (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to step on any toes here, I see that you're dedicated to this article. I don't think the way you chopped up my paragraph really works though.  I know it wasn't the most elegant paragraph ever, but c'mon it wasn't that bad. I think it had some points that were relevant, and that actually I was surprised weren't in the article.  I was hoping I'd have a little more time to fine tune it, or maybe someone else could.  It seems even more slapped together now though, especially the sentence "Roosevelt may have felt that the agreement was necessary at the time to save many lives of American soldiers fighting in the Pacific." all on its own at the end.  It really should be closer to the part where it says many Americans consider Roosevelt to be a "sellout" since that's what it's responding to, but then it would be awkward going back into the reasons why Roosevelt is a sellout.  The way the section is written now actually makes it very awkward to insert balancing viewpoints, which is a pretty strong indication of POV.  I think a lot of this stuff should probably be in its own section (opinions / criticism) so it's not mixed in with the facts. KenFehling (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with you that the "sellout" paragraph statement is a bit odd from a POV standpoint, along with some around it. I moved the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attack sentences to the aftermath.  Re any hesitance that Roosevelt would have had to use the atomic bomb relative to Truman, you'd probably want a cite for that.  As a sort of heads up, I've learned when editing Eastern Europe related articles (and this one is re the "sellout" point) that there are very strong and definite opinions by many (especially those living in the region) on both sides of such issues, and those strong beliefs often find themselves in rather strongly worded text (or the deletion of neutrally worded text).  That's not one-sided, but both ways. If you want to take a stab at re-writing it, I would read through a few sources on the issue, draft up something as neutral and factual as possible (leave out the "some argue" and the like, too), with inline citations for each sentence, and give it a shot.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Assassination attempts on Stalin
At http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-559234/The-man-Stalins-body-double-finally-tells-story.html it is asserted that two attempts were made in Yalta to kill Stalin…has anyone heard this, or know further details? (specifically who tried, and why) Historian932 (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision of History
Basically, the Allies reached an agreement at Yalta that conceded he predominance of the Lublin Poles in any Polish provisional government, albeit with the inclusion of democratic leaders of Poles in Poland and abroad. Because many exile politicians refused to comply with the Yalta agreement, their participation was ruled out. The precedent for Soviet policies in Poland had been set by the Allies refusal to let Russia to have meaningful input in Italy's occupation regime. The agremeent on Poland was not a source of tension between the Grand Alliance as demonstrated by the West's recognition of the Lublin Poles. Kupredu (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. It took the form of no enforcement mechanism for the Yalta report promises of free and unfettered elections with all parties in any of the occupied countries, including Poland.  The lack of which is obviously what followed.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Why so much emphasis on Poland?
While no emphasis on Greece for example, where the Western Powers established pro-Western governments in much more cruel way than did Soviets in Poland?--Dojarca (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Plenty of reasons. Greece's boundaries did not change.  It was not a major theatre of the war.  It didn't have 25-30% of its population killed in the war.  It did not have to relocated millions of people after the war.   The war in Greece was a sideshow compared to Poland.    It is absurd to compare the post-war disruption in Greece,  which was primarily a civil war between various political factions of Greeks,  to the externally imposed imposition of Stalinism on Poland.Eregli bob (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There is too much emphasis on Poland. This is supposed to be an article about Yalta Conference. Either briefly mention all of the affected nations or no particular nations at all. I see this as a clear violation of the Neutral Point of View policy. Martin J. Němeček (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Something wrong with this
"Stalin requested that all of the 16 Soviet Socialist Republics would be granted United Nations membership. This was taken into consideration, but 14 republics were denied."

If this statement were to be correct, then only 2 of the USSR republics became UN members. 16-14=2 ! But there were 3,  the Russian, Belorussian and Ukrainian SSR's were all UN members.Eregli bob (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

1.	What was decided at Yalta? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.110.215 (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Churchill & Poland
The current page contains the statement "Churchill alone pushed for free elections in Poland". The cited page on the winstonchurchill web page is out of date and I can find no supporting claims on that site (nor does the citation page on the wayback machine have anything relevant). Indeed the main page on the Yalta conference suggests rather different dynamics. The discussion from Finest Hour suggests that both Roosevelt and Churchill's proposals included free elecions. Maybe Churchill talked more but it seems he subsequently left Roosevelt to keep Stalin to his word. Does anyone have better information on this? Chris55 (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Korean agreements
I find it curious that no mention is made of Korea in the article. There is an ongoing discussion in the Talk:World War II and Talk:Aftermath of World War II about the occupation and division of Korea at Yalta and Potsdam. I imagine that once those discussions are complete, we can turn our attention to ensuring that something is added to each of these articles about it. --Habap (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

in general, extreme Euro-bias of this article
Forthcoming recognition of Mongolian independence was extremely significant in Eastern Asia history, yet this is excluded from the article. Authors provide lengthy detail about everything European, but mention nothing about agreements over Japanese territories (South Sakhalin, Kuril Islands, Taiwan, Korea). At the Yalta conference, it was understood that the Soviets would gain possession over South Sakhalin, yet this was removed from future proceedings. Even to this day, Japan has never resolved disputes with the USSR/Russia, and it continues to be a sore spot. The Republic of china (and the PRC) had extremely strong sentiments about acquiring direct and full sovereignty over Mongolia, yet this apparently has no place in an article where only Europe matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.116.55 (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Portal?
The caption in the infobox states that the officer on the left is Charles Portal. I'm inclined to doubt this because a) he seems to be stockier than Portal, and b) he appears to be wearing a British army uniform rather than an RAF one. Now, if we compare this picture to File:Yalta summit 1945 with Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin.jpg, I think there is a case to be made for the person being Alan Brooke. Favonian (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It says the person behind Churchill is Portal - I am pretty sure the person directly behind Churchill's head *is* Portal. The person on the far left of the picture may be Alan Brooke. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be certain: if you are referring to File:Yalta summit 1945 with Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin.jpg then we agree, and it's consistent with the file description on Commons. The problem is who is who on the picture in the infobox, File:Yalta Conference (Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin) (B&W).jpg.  The more I look at the two pictures, the more certain I am that the caption should be changed.  We might also note the obvious presence of George Marshall. Favonian (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the explanation: from May 2010 changed the image but retained the original caption! Favonian (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Churchill's memoirs and the partition of Europe in "influence zones"
Churchill, in his memoirs, explicitly refers to an understanding between Britain and the USSR about the political future of post-war Eastern Europe. (See entry for Churchill; also, specifically, for the Percentages agreement.) Omitting any mention of this alleged understanding/agreement is a serious detriment to the integrity of the article on the Yalta Conference. -The Gnome (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Was this discussed at Yalta? If so, add it, with references. ( Hohum  @ ) 15:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't and I'm mistaken in suggesting such an insertion for the Yalta Conference article. It could possibly merit a simple mention, because many people confuse the alleged Churchill-Stalin Moscow agreement with what was agreed in Yalta, along with a link to the relevant, Wikipedia article. -The Gnome (talk) 08:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?
In addition, Stalin stated regarding history that "because the Russians had greatly sinned against Poland", "the Soviet government was those sins."[6]

"was those sins"?

Surely this can't be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.24.33.227 (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Further edits
Quote supposedly attributed to FDR here "to summarize his entire position" was only claimed by one person, William Bullitt, who was demoted by Roosevelt and had his career blocked by Roosevelt. Cannot include a quote claimed by only one person in an article written in Life Magazine with no evidence in any state or any other documents actually substantiating it. Deleted.

Deleted blanket and uncited statements such as "American government officials believed that..." or "Scholars believe that..." or "Many Americans believed that..."

Sentences sourced to defunct websites and political think tanks are deleted.

Also it is factually incorrect to say that Roosevelt maintained confidence in Stalin post Yalta, as his writings to Churchill post Yalta clearly demonstrate otherwise.

Ukraine, Ukrainian SSR, and Crimea
Ukraine is not mentioned once in this article, despite the fact that the conference took place in Ukraine and there were millions of Ukrainian Ostarbeiters sent to their deaths as a result of the agreement.184.147.233.174 (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, debating the fine details of the political organization of the former USSR seems like an exercise of dubious value, but here goes ...


 * Yalta is located on the Crimean Peninsula, a part of the Russian empire for centuries. After the USSR was established, the peninsula was incorporated into the Russian SFSR.  Crimea was not part of the Ukrainian SSR until 1954, when the transfer was accomplished under the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev.  So this 1945 conference did not take place in the Ukrainian SSR (after 1991, simply Ukraine) at all.


 * The location of the conference later became part of the Ukrainian SSR and subsequently part of the nation-state of Ukraine. But that had not been the case until 1954.  98.245.81.12 (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Misleading
The article says "Many of these men and women were originally from the Kresy region of eastern Poland including cities such as Lwow and Wilno." The article fails to mention that Poland had occupied this region of Lithuania contrary to international law and had subsequently annexed it. I realize this is about Yalta conference, but the reader at the moment has no clue that Poland itself had been aggressor in this region, and it sounds like this was uncontroversially Polish territory. It is something that should be mentioned, possibly in parentheses. If no one objects I'll amend the text. 99.95.129.236 (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Truth

Stalin's plans
The article mentions Molotovs concerns regardings Stalin's plans. But it doesn't go deeper into or links to what plans he had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1812:6:DB00:7578:2400:DD31:51 (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

'Operation Keelhaul'
As the Wikipedia page pertaining to author / journalist / scholar Julius Epstein states, Operation Keelhaul (concerning the forced repatriation, by Allied forces, of some four(4) million Russians, to Stalin) was an amendment to the Yalta Agreement.

As such, why is no mention made, nor connecting page link provided for, to said integral component of the post-WW2 agreement in question? For most will not likely encounter the information in question via searches for the aforementioned author of the titular book ― thereby greatly diminishing the chance that people will learn of this infamously covered-up annotation to the already controversial Yalta Agreement. Seem remiss for an (((encyclopedia))) to leave this out...

Will somebody address this?... Or should I add the necessary information myself...?

Sablicious (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Pentagon Papers
In the summary of section one of the papers (https://nara-media-001.s3.amazonaws.com/arcmedia/research/pentagon-papers/Pentagon-Papers-Part-I.pdf, page 1) it briefly mentions discussion of the independence of French Indochina by Roosevelt. This page does not state that (although as a high school student, I don't want to edit a page this important without confirmation). Can anyone take a minute to confirm this? Thanks!

I also wrote this on the talk page of the Tehran Conference, and edited the Second Cairo Conference.

Bensjones (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yugoslavia liberated itself!
"In the east, Red Army Marshal Georgy Zhukov's forces were 65 km (40 mi) from Berlin, having already pushed back the Germans from Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and most of Yugoslavia."

With all due respect Yugoslavia liberated itself, By Josip Broz Tito and his partyzan forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_in_Yugoslavia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.77.216.102 (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

regarding the cession of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands
In the article it says "The Soviets also wanted cession of Karafuto and the Kuril Islands, taken from Russia by Japan in the Russo-Japanese War (1905), which was also agreed to." That sounds like Japan took the Kuril Islands from Russia in 1905, when they actually got them from Russia in exchange for Sakhalin in 1875 through the Treaty of Saint Petersburg (or am I wrong about that?). That sounds misleading to me.Fresiak (talk) 18:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Factual error: France was not invited to Yalta and de Gaulle didn’t attend.
There appears to be a serious error in the Yalta Conference article. At the beginning it states that France was represented by de Gaulle but France was not invited and de Gaulle did not attend. Indeed, I think it says as much further in the article and it is a widely known fact. It needs to be corrected, unless I’m mistaken. --Tumblingsky (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * right. i removed France. Rjensen (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for prompt correction. Tumblingsky (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Eastern Europe
The simple-english wiki article says that at the conference it was agreed that Eastern Europe would be under soviet influence. I have never heard this before and just wondered if it was true or false? Firestar47 (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)