Greetings. Its a pleasure to see you all here. Its always great to see probably all are familiar faces. We saw most of you in november and hope to see most of you again in november and in between in september for our memory conference. Stephen had said unfortunately dr. Stoler tried his best. Slipped on the way and caught his balance. All three flights from burlington, vermont were cancelled to get him here yesterday. While we are disappointed, he is even more disappointed that he couldnt make it back down here and present. But i can tell you that we are very fortunate in this great city to have one of the leading scholars in this field here to fill the breach. And enlighten us with the first panel of the day. He has been a friend since before we had a building. Not just a hotel, but an actual museum. He goes back with nick mueller and Stephen Ambrose all the way to the early days as a master Student Affairs and then went to harvard to obtain his phd and then came back home to join the faculty at unlv. Melanie boulet has just retired from being a lifelong schoolteacher and she is also very involved with our Educational Committee so its great to have you. As i mentioned going way back, we have heard lots of suggestions from dr. Bischoff over the years and we have listened to them and we have enacted them slowly. A couple of things that today really points out to me is the students. Gunter and his friends at uno also with younger scholars. Those who may be postdoc or fresh out of the phd program. And to look at a broader International Perspective and try to bring in not just the American Experience in our public programming. Lastly he has been a long time advocate. Thank you for everything youve done for us. Dr. Bischoff is the professor of history at the university of new orleans. He came here as an Exchange Student with a history degree and a masterss degree from uno. He has published too many books to put in one biography and edited many more and published thousands of articles. But he has most recently the Marshall Plan since 1947, saving europe, rebuilding austria. We have had him on our president ial counselors Advisory Board since before we had a board in 2006 and hes always a delight to be here. So lets welcome dr. Gunter bischof to the podium to open our yalta symposium. Thank you. Good morning. Its so good to see many of you here, a special shout out to our colleagues and students at uno. Its sort, of if you think about yalta, fitting that our colleague did not make it out of vermont because it was very hard to get to yalta at the time. In february 1945. You might know that roosevelt was already a very sickly man, and he had to travel by ship from virginia to the mediterranean ten days, and then a sevenhour flight up to the northern part of the crimean peninsula, stocky airfield, and from there he took a card to the palace in yalta. Another four hours, this was a man who had all kinds of physical challenges. So keep that in mind. By the way, there was a number of other cities initially envisioned for a summit meeting, churchill and roosevelt suggested, for example, northern scotland, socially, alexandria, or jerusalem as possible, a site for a summit meeting but did not want to leave the soviet union. We will talk more about that. When we talk about summits, this was a relatively recent phenomenon and what we have an International Deployment see. When center chill, as he coined many important concepts, he also coined summit trees. When there was a chase on who would first clear the summit of mount everest, that fired up the imagination of contemporary people. From that, he took the term summit tree. The cambridge historian has written excellent book on 20th century summits, and that was the one in munich, that was before yalta, which we will talk about today. The way professor reynolds put it, it was made possible by air travel, and necessary buy weapons of mass destruction and made into household news by the mass media. These are the three elements that are crucial in modern summitry. Let me get into the very complete outlined by doctor stroller, and walk you through it. His team is various summit conferences before the yalta summit, and it is preliminary marks, he was saying that the yalta conference is often considered to be a peace conference, but it is not. The war was still going on, and military matters had a high place on the conference agenda, he says, and appears only in retrospect as if it were a peace conference. He thinks this was due to the fact that there was no real postworld war ii peace conference, the way versailles and the paris conference ended a broader one. He wants to make that important point, not a peace conference. And he also makes the point and, that is what is outlined is about that Major Political issues that were on the delta Conference Schedule had already been discussed and many summit meetings. And i had discussed in conferences and november 1943, which was also a bit more than a year before yalta. There were many other conference by lower level diplomats, and i would add to that outline that, many of the issues that were discussed by the big three or Foreign Ministers were various planning committees. It was the Foreign Office which came out of Foreign Research which was at oxford. So i have looked at many of these document with regard to austria, and they are very complete, and i think in the british case you can see that churchill took more suggestions of his planners than in the american. Case in the United States, the council on Foreign Relations began post war planning even before the country was in the war. And when the u. S. Finally tried the war in 1941, that planning effort from the council on Foreign Relations brought into the state department. Many of the council experts were part of it, but it was in the state department, much of the planning was done in 1942 and 43, but very often the suggestions made by the expert were not necessarily picked up by roosevelt and carried out. So, in other words, there was huge Planning Efforts going on in the Angle American world, but also france, once it had a government again, and also in the soviet union that was planning going. On and it was something that a quietly goes forward when the armies fight in the fields trying to defeat the nazis on the battlefield. Lets go into the outline here. Doctor scholar has put together the most important conferences, and you can see on the highest level with roosevelt and charge begins in august 1941, the famous newfoundland conference when the Atlanta Charter was agreed on by a crucial wartime document by roosevelt and churchill. So, again, the United States was not in the war, and already they were doing diplomatic planning for the post war future of the world. There was a couple of meetings in washington d. C. You see that in 1942, and then a moscow meeting with churchill and stalin meeting in august and herman was also present, if you dont know, he was roosevelt ambassador to the soviet union and between roosevelt and stolen. Then they met in casablanca, morocco, stalin did not come to that even though he was invited because it was out of the country, as he put it. And it was the Unconditional Surrender that determines that the japanese cannot consider this time, this was a lesson of world war one, conditionally, but they had to surrender unconditionally at the end of the war. So a crucial decision. Another quebec meeting, the first meeting that was the Foreign Ministers so they were represented by how. This thing is not working, jeremy. Okay, then there was a meeting in washington where it was being founded in 1943, thats very important for the post world. They were in Central Europe and in europe after world war ii, in 1940. Six if you think about the fact that in germany and austria people only had 1000 calories a day, it would be them that guaranteed their survival. So a very important need there. After tehran, there was a meeting for post war planning also for the far east. Then the important tehran meeting, ill talk more about that in a few minutes. That was in november of 1943, and then meetings that were important for the post world, the brett meeting in new hampshire, where all of the important decisions were made for the post world war. But out of this meeting, the dollar became the strongest currency in the world and other currencies would be fitted to the dollar after the war. So this was important for the financial order of the post world war. In washington, a meeting that was a long meeting and mainly dealt with the United Nations matters. Quebec and canada was only decided to talk about that, and then moscow in the soviet union church flew there. Think about this, churchill flew 107 miles to get to these meetings. And then these miles the travel was not always comfortable. If you think about the meetings going to moscow and the fall of 1944, and i will talk about it a bit. An important decision was made about how the bookends will be divided up. The socalled percentage agreement, and at yalta, we will talk about the meetings continuing early on. And important decisions were made about force world germany, including reparations decisions. So its a very long list of meetings that we are talking about. And in all of these meetings, important decisions were made about the post world order. So, for example. , when they got to moscow and october 1943, the Foreign Ministers talked about whether the soviet union would come into the war in the far east, that is something that continued at yalta, and im sure they will talk about that. For example, the moscow meeting was something that doctor stolen did not know, that i tell you its also important for declarations of post war austria. That founded the post war austrian estate, that had been gobbled up by the nazis in 1938. But important decisions have been made about nazi germany already. It was important for a combined military strategy, and finding the second front. He insisted on it, and when you think about it, the United States had already landed in the british and in italy, making their way up the booth and 1943. The soviets had already defeated the germans before moscow, as stalin grad in 1943. So while these vital progress was being made on the battlefield, here they decided, finally, we are going to open up a second front six months after the end of the tehran conference. So, in that sense, the second front had been a sore issue between the western powers and stolen for two years. It was first promised may of 1942, and finally stolen insisted that it came about because he wanted to believe his armies in the east and upon his insistence, it finally was promised that there would be a landing in france, operation over lord, and another landing in the south of france. This would force hitler into a two front war, meaning he would have to fight in the west to. Of course there was a three or four front war going on because it was fighting in italy and the balkans and in scandinavia. He had armies all over. So, the big three met in tehran in purja, in november of 1943. And not only did the big three mean, but the combined chiefs of staff met there as well, meaning the military leaders of the british and the americans, so you kind of see that the military matters were important, that diplomatic matters for the post war order. So the poloz issue was beginning to be discussed again. Well talk about that later and yalta because the poland boundaries and future government, that was an issue that deeply divided the east and west. When this conference went over churchill and roosevelt went to cairo in egypt and this conference business continued into 1944. For example, an important decision was made in tehran that the socalled European Advisory Commission would be established in london. The European Advisory Commission would be an important, where the boundaries were being established. They later ambassador in the soviet union, so an important decision coming out of tehran. At the quebec conference, the first one the Prime Minister also discussed nuclear weapons, the atomic bomb and they would say that this scientific effort to achieve came to fruition at the end of the war would remain an Angle American monopoly, and would not be shared by the soviets. Of course, that would be a sore point after the war that information had not been shared with the soviets. So, if you think about these many diplomatic parties, they were trying to decide on important issues to replace the leak of nations, which had not been a particularly successful organization. Many of the issues were worked out. On the United Nations issue such as a future General Assembly where the four policemen, as roosevelt called them were covering the United Nations. Great britain, the soviet union and china would dominate as the four policemen of the United Nations. There will be a General Assembly where all nations would be represented, but one of the sore point with the soviet union just and you all to, but it was discussed earlier that the soviet union insisted that they wanted and in the General Assembly. And and im not will not talk more about it because im sure that they will pick up that issue. The future of germany was a very important discussion part and all of these conferences, namely the decision that germany would be occupied militarily by the big three after the war. There was an interesting incident where, in fact, there was talking about the notification of germany, and stalin said the best way to do not survive germany is to kill 50,000 officers. Churchill was aghast at this suggestion. And roosevelt choked 45,000 is enough. They have to talk about the future order of post war germany in the sense of what we will do with all of the nazis and the notification was a very important subject matter. And let me mention one more thing that was very important that they quebec conference, the american secretary of treasury henry warm and thaw insisted on a severe treatment of germany, namely that germany would be pasteurized, would be the industrialized so he could not be a threat to the future of the world again, and this socalled plan was accepted by churchill and this conference, however, when the state department heard about it they were aghast at the idea of the de industrialized germany because they knew that germany was the center of the cotton european economy, and the de industrialization would hurt everyone around them. This strange thing was then rejected later on and did not come to fruition. We still dont know exactly how it came about, but one idea that has been discussed more recently was that this is a soviet idea, and that a higher official was actually the soviet spy, so it might have come via harry dexter white, this idea. Finally, one last important meeting before the yalta meeting is when churchill came to moscow and october of 1943. Roosevelt could not come because he was in the middle of his Fourth Campaign for being reelected. In this meeting, the infamous percentage agreement was agreed upon by the two leaders. The percentage agreement said, this is something that apparently churchill broke down on a napkin and roosevelt checked off at very percentages, but its a fear of influence agreement of diplomacy. And the case of remaining in the soviet union, if you have 90 insurance and the west britain 10 , and in the case of, great 90 increase for the british. 10 influence for the soviets. Yugoslavian and curry would be split 50 50 in terms of influence in bulgaria and the west, 25 . Note that poland is not part of this agreement, czechoslovakia is not. Austria is not part of it, but in terms of the future influence taking in Eastern Europe, it was very important what was agreed upon by these two leaders in moscow. Now, did roosevelt know about it . Yes. Harrison was reporting on the percentages and he reported back to washington, and since roosevelt not outrightly reject the percentages, stolen which led to believe that, indeed, it was an agreement between the big three. So, ladies and gentlemen, i think im going to stop here. This is the outline of the preyalta conference that took place, where many of the important decisions that would figure at yalta on poland, on germany and the post war order were already, if not agreed upon, they were there during the whole war and yalta, of course, we continued. So we continue with your attention and if there is attention, i will ask them. Thank you for starting us off here. Ladies and gentlemen, ill be walking through the crowd with a microphone, i ask that you stand before you ask the question. The solid refusal to leave yalta, is that legitimate or some kind of maneuver otherwise . From what i can tell, it was a maneuver. Because roosevelt and churchill just as legitimately could have said, we cant leave our country because we have to be close to our military decisionmaking and that was stalins principal reason. One reason why he probably only came to a meeting at yalta or tehran which was under soviet control at the time we think is that it gave him an opportunity to thoroughly bug the meeting rooms and the places where roosevelt and churchill would meet. So we think that these meeting rooms were bugged and that whenever churchill and roosevelt talk privately, stalin would have the transcripts of those talks the next evening. He was very careful in knowing what the other players would come up with and that intelligence advantage seemed to have been very important to him. I can see a reason why he wouldnt talk, couldnt travel to northern scotland for a summit meeting. It would certainly have been much easier for roosevelt to get to than the long way to keep in mind, yalta had just recently been liberated meaning the crimean peninsula. It had been gravely destroyed by the germans when they withdrew from crimea. When roosevelt drove down, he saw that destruction all around him. It was still in a way of place to get to as well because there were still german mines around. It was somewhat dangerous to get there. Dr. Bischoff, to your right please. One of the things that influences yalta is how much the soviets figured they were doing the heavy lifting and way the west where the lightweights in the whole thing. Can you comment on the relative contributions of the sides coming to yalta . The relative contributions diplomatically you mean . Military contributions. Well, that is a big question, but the generally speaking let me, actually. He has a map here. This might explain it better. After the normandy landings, okay, the western army is very quickly moving up through the low countries, up to the german border, even though the battle of the bulge, they were already threatening to break into germany proper. What we often forget but that our International Conference is more easily to a pointed out very vigorously, of course, part of the agreement with tehran was that the soviets would also attack in the east. And that was operation, which happened a couple of weeks after the normandy invasion, which kept eastern poland, and so they were already outside of war, so fairly close to berlin by the time. But yalta occurred, so both sides had to make a tremendous advantages. In terms of who contributed more, that is an old discussion where i am on the side that probably the army contributed more because the germans, throughout the war, had many more divisions fighting in the east than in the west. Keep in mind, there was not much happening and the west until the normandy landing. They have been preparing for such a landing in france. They had 45 and our france and italy. Shipped around if need be, depending on where they landed, but in terms of german divisions, there was 180 out of 220 german divisions, which were tied down in the east. With the big victories at stolen grant, the germans became much weaker but i think in terms of the overall weight of the contribution to the final victory you would have to say, given that they were fighting since june 1941, they would have made a larger contribution to be a eventual defeat of the german army. We have a question online. Its a personal opinion question, of all of the conferences prior to yalta, which one is the most influential or had the most influential decision . I think that would have been that tehran conference, which was a big three meeting when all of them met, the joint chiefs of staff met, where important military decisions were made, and i think that would be what i will read from your notes, that the important second front was made, the Unconditional Surrender was reaffirmed by the soviets as well, so i will have to think that tehran was the most important meeting. By the sheer fact that all three of them met. I will get to the question to your left, near the middle. Three great questions, thank you for your wonderful presentation. How did roosevelt and truman travel, one into the post war consideration when they were in the top three, and finally, the percentage arrangement, example, hungary was 50 free and soviet, and it finally worked out that the soviets with regard to how, and truman travel, i told you how he got to yalta, it was very difficult to get their. How i feel it took an airplane, i think he took a ship to get to possum, so he traveled the oldfashioned way. But if you are thinking about summary, it was also being made possible by more comfortable travel agreements. Certainly, in the postworld war ii world, they would fly, like churchill flew during the war. But roosevelt, because of his heart condition could not really fly. The way he flew from malta was the plane had to go like 10,000 feet, very low, what was dangerous, and had to be very careful about what territory they flew, so he could not fly 30,000 feet above the ground. With regards to france, i left that out because that is one thing that you will talk about, because the decision to involve the french in the German Occupation was finally decided at yalta because churchill insisted on it. Churchill was afraid that the United States would withdraw after the war. There are plenty indications that they made that would happen, so they felt it would be left alone with the soviets, and he wanted the french to be on his side. Thats why he insisted to eventually in austria. That made the french a great power again, and made them a victorious power, which in terms of the fighting, they were not, and that is why stalin was very reluctant to it, the french coming, so there was a lot of fighting already in the early meetings, he talks about it in his outline, about how they should be divided up. There was all kinds of dismemberment plans. Somebody said wed like to have many germanys and consolidated and Central Europe. Many small germanys im being independent states again, and rather than one small germany. That would have been about that there was consideration of a division among religious lines. South catholic, the north protestant, the division among those lines, there was also a lot of talk by the british about a newbie and confederation, to rebuild some type of half state as a confederation in Eastern Europe. That would be part of the larger dismemberment issue to, to weaken germany. But stalin wanted to have nothing of the confederation because he felt that would be a new establishment against him. In the end, the United States had him sewn in the southeast if you will, bavaria and the french got in the southwest. The british and the northwest of what would be the federal republic of germany, and the soviets got this in the northeast, which would be the gdr. In that sense, at the occupation came a dismemberment, meaning to germanys rather than one. But that had a lot to do with the illogical conduct, but they were given british insistence, they were not happy, stalin was not happy, and many of the agreements on the Stonewall Division of germany and austria made it this European Advisory Commission, and later adapted by the big three. Now, your final question about hungary. Indeed, it was 50 50, now keep in mind that this time does this thing work here . Yes. Theyre already pretty close to budapest. That would be a big battle over budapest by the nazis over incoming red armies from about january to march of 1945. Much of budapest was destroyed during that final battle for budapest. The red army in april of 1945 with takeover vienna. The way hungry developed was that there would be a free election, the small party of conservative agricultural was strongest, they ruled, but in 1947, through socalled tactics, that they were called at that point in time, the communist party took over. The party took over in hungary. Supported of course by the soviet occupation. There was also british and American Occupation elements in budapest but they had very little to say, just like an occupational arrangements of hungarian and romania that would be american and british representation. The soviets dominated those places because they liberated them and set up the communists that had been here in the war in the soviet union like the post communists. They set them up with governments. That even threatened to happen in austria because after vienna was liberated in april, mid april of 1945 provisional government was established in austria and all socialist leader who had already been the head of state after world war one was brought back into power. There was one third socialist and one third communist representation on the provisional government. Stalin and roosevelt did not like that a bit because there was supposed to be a joint government established by all three powers. From the west it looked like the same thing what happened in vienna that was happening in budapest and elsewhere in Eastern Europe that the soviets were trying to set up the communists for ruling in post war austria as well. Interesting the enough, we think of churchills iron curtain metaphor as being appointed in the speech of march of 1946 held in trumans home state of missouri in a small college. The first time spoke to the world about the iron curtain having rattled down on the northern seed. He was already using that metaphor for the austrian events in 1945 that he was afraid an iron curtain was coming down. Only an inside document. You can say the cold war already broke out over issues such as, that is why i mentioned austria and hungary in 1945 when the soviets try to sort of force governments upon these people. Doctor beshear off, to your right please. Doctor, would you comment that during the entirety of world war ii for six years are already entirety of world war ii that 85 to 95 of the war was fought on the Eastern Front . Good to see you here. He is the eminent historian of war two so one would hardly want to contradict him. He is a member of the counselor every year and i would not want to contradict him, but in a way he is putting numbers to what i was saying before that much of the fighting and dying from world war ii actually happened on the Eastern Front in if you talk to any german today, he would associated i think that it is a figure he considered very thoroughly. So not contradict him, but i think the trend line is clear that given the many german divisions in the east, that is where the war is decided. Im not trying to diminish the allied effort in normandy but we need at the same time put it into proportion. Doctor beshear off, question online. Can you please comment on the negotiations between churchill and stalling regarding the percentage slash but influences occurred prior to the conference . Was this quote negation necessary to get the soviets on board . In your opinion, did the benefit of the soviet british Side Agreement continued cooperation of the soviets undermined the overall outcome of the conference in the post war order . This may actually be a better question for doctor pataki or for the panel but if you would like to we can pick that up later what. It is clear that percentages came from churchill actually but and stalin checked him off and agreed with them so in that sense whether churchill, i would have to reread the memoirs. That is how the world heard about them first. I suspected that churchill wanted to make a concession to stalin to humor him, see that the west was prepared to make concessions, but from the american perspective, it looked very bad because roosevelt did not want to see traditional european influence the promises to be continued and in that sense, roosevelt not being there, not shooting it down, he was not at the meeting, but he heard about it later. Eventually, the americans were thought to have signed on to it since they did not protest this kind of division, so i would say lets leave it at that for now and we can come back to it later. Before we get to doctor for a question, there is another on line that is pretty lately so i will prior phrase it here. In all these previous conferences, summits, meetings between specifically the western allies, how fearful was stalin of what was being discussed, how forthcoming were the western allies with moscow and telling him what would be discussed on the agenda so on and so forth. How is a trust level or were they holding some things back . We talk about stalin, you have to keep in mind the historians dont have access to any kind of documents and i think dr. Blocky can confirm that. Stalin is very hard to prove one way or the other of having agreed on this or that because he did not really talk much during the war, so we dont really know of all the big three. We know that he did not like the Unconditional Surrender made because he thought this was sort of indicating the degree of western cooperation that were tried to exclude the soviets. In other words, he would have liked to been part of that and he was not, but on the other hand we know there were others going out from moscow the a sweden and such to see whether there were some type of correctional conditional surrender given the battles on the Eastern Front. We know that stalin was a very distrustful men and in a decision like an Unconditional Surrender decision that came out fairly clearly, but beyond that, i hope dr. Blocky talks more about that. I would say it is difficult. To your right with dr. Mullet i would like to add a clarification. If you count only groundfloor casualties, we are fairly certain that the russians accounted for two thirds of all German Military deaths in the second world war. This case overlooks the fact that the allies destroyed the uboat force, not the russians and the allies had the major role of destroying the luftwaffe. The russians forget that the air campaign, the results through the best of the Fighter Force back into the defense of germany where it was destroyed, so there was an indirect influence on the Eastern Front which in fact favored the russians. Gerhart has done great footnotes. You have to check those out. Again, nobody would want to dispute him. I would add that indeed, sometimes it is interpreted as the second front that had not opened earlier on the ground and i think a good argument in the made that so much, not only manpower, but american wealth and british wealth went into the campaign that kept the germans offkilter. For example, if you think about the building of the fee weapons, the german rockets and so forth, initially they were tested on the north sea and when the british bomb that side, they had to relocate the effort underground. They put it in the mountains and they were put in tested in the sub camp agency, so if you look at individual production capabilities of the germans, you see how much the bombing would hurt. Of course, even though a lot of american pilots and crews perished in the efforts and came down in terms of numbers, it is much fewer than what is going on on the Eastern Front, but in terms of overall you have to triple and quadruple those numbers. I was impressed by the length of the list of conferences and as you know, there has been discussion about the prospect of bombing the death camps that were responsible for the holocaust. At which of any of these conferences was the subject of the holocaust discussed . Was there any discussion about what could be done about it . By the time, auschwitz had in liberated, but to my mind, in none of the conferences was the holocaust discussed. I think we are quite sure today that they knew early on because german and soviet traffic could be listened to meaning the coats were broken and through the broken codes, they heard a lot going on the Eastern Front about the killing of jews, so i think that puts them in the know as early as 1940 11 when the holocaust was beginning to unfold. They knew about it, but they did not discuss it. In terms of bombing auschwitz, i have nothing more. This was heavily discussed in 1995, 1994, the 50th anniversary conference of the enormity and vision and i dont really think there is much beyond what was said at the time, mainly we need to defeat the germans and the sooner we defeat them, the better it will be for the jews so we dont want to squander our military resources when it is more important to defeat the nazis on the battlefield and as soon as they are defeated, the killing of the jews will end, but of course on the other hand, the nazis killed jews to the very end of the war. If you follow the gruesome story of the walk out of the concentration camps, there were People Killed to the very end of the war, so i think one could discuss whether one could have done more, but keep in mind the holocaust, there were many death camps in the east and the concentration camps, you see this, they increasingly became death camps due to the severe treatments of inmates which was russian pows, all kinds of people, enemies of the nazis that were brought there. It sounds like a death camp too. It was for all the did this pertain to the Jewish Population or was this for all of europe and all of displaced peoples . It was for all of europe and all the displaced people. Keep in mind, the United States had experience in a sense that Herbert Hoover launched to defeat the people of europe and a lot of attention has been paid to the uber effort, sometimes compared to the postwar Marshall Plans. It was designed specifically not for jews, but for all the hungry people of the world, so if you take the german and austrian populations, i would say their survival could not have been guaranteed. The u. S. Army put a lot of eight out there, but keep in mind they worked until 1947 and in the United States said we are paying the expenses and we have no control over what the United Nations is doing, so we want to start our own effort and the Marshall Plan came out and supported and war on the anra. It had already closest stores. Unreal also went to Eastern Europe just like whoever went to hungary and Eastern Europe in places like that. Thank you. Next question is about dead ahead for you. Looking at the map of europe, it is easy to understand why they came from soviet domination because czechoslovakia is there. They are far west of austria. That is what they said after the war. Exactly right. If you travel from vienna to prague you go west. I was under the impression that they were prepared to enter czechoslovakia and could have occupied prague before the soviets got there and they were called back. In any event, my question to you is, why did a different result happen in czechoslovakia than in austria. Why did they not divide czechoslovakia into two states the way it exists now with the Czech Republic and slovakia on the eastern side with different realms of influence . Thank you. That is a long question but a good one. Czechoslovakia also had a free after the war like hungary. The interesting thing is in that free election of 46, the communist came out the Strongest Party at 40 present. Why was that so . You asked yourself rightly and usually the ads are to the question is that the checks were still smarting visavis the west because of the munich agreement. They felt they were sold out to munich to the nazis, which in many respects they were. And that sense they never forgiven the british for being involved in that agreement. Spanish, the czech leader and exile already visited moscow in 1943 and sort of did preliminary agreements with the soviets because they felt they needed to deal with the russians and soviets directly. Since the soviets had not been off to munich so they couldnt blame the soviets. That explains to a good part their election result in 1946. You are right, patton and third army i knew one of them had been across the border and check count but they were stopped to go on to prague even though they couldve liberated prague. That was a sort of decision to hold the l bee river in germany and had to do with the fact that there was wartime agreements that the military leadership eisenhower marshal didnt want to break with the soviets. Since the soviets were already liberated soviet by beginning of may 1945, it was not far for them to get to prague. Prague is an interesting city in the sense that it has suffered very little destruction during world war ii. Vienna and budapest were destroyed very heavily and of course churchill early on had wanted to liberate those cities himself by the west. He had a socalled gap strategy. If i can get it. It is sort of down here. The capital of slovenia. Nowadays it is wellknown in the United States and is the home country of the first lady. Liana strategy is a strategy that churchill had to sort of push on the americans in 1945 1945 and say there is a gap here in the mountains, lets go up to austria, czechoslovakia, hungry because we cannot allow the soviets to liberate the ancient capitals of europe. He was ticking of vienna, prague and budapest. Eisenhower said that is going to be a very that is a strategy that we have to cut through the mountains but he didnt want to see any resources through the gaps and his strategy was to fight in the west enormity and down here in southern france. Of course, there was not enough landing boats around either but churchill sort of had twice your question, had seen it coming that if the red Army Liberates those places they are also going to pose a regime on it. That is pretty much stall and has told yugoslavia join the war. Wherever an Army Liberates, it is going to build its order on the place. That is what it did all over Eastern Europe. To finally answer your question, what happened and chat go silica and why did it come under communist control . The reason for that is in 1948, february, there was a coup and czechoslovakia where the government ministers of the conservative parties resigned. The communist that season opportunity not to start a new government but simply put themselves into place. From february 1948 onwards we have the communist in prague and czechoslovakia as well. You can say the year after hungry, after budapest, czechoslovakia is turning and being turned into a communist country as well. The ultimate irony of course is that when it came time to who will participate in the martial plan. The checks would have loved to have participated and said so in 1947 but stalin had called the czech leadership, the foreign leader and told him no you cant participate. That might have been a preliminary step for czechoslovakia to go down on the communist side to because in a way, the martial plan firmed up the iron. The countries in western europe that participated, started to participate in 1948 a landed on the western prosperous state of europe. The country of Eastern Europe that could not participate in the martial plan landed on the site that would slowly, economically go down the drain to become poor. It was a moment of great decision for the checks but moscow would not allow them to participate. That is why the coup in 1948 should not surprise us because around that time the foreign minister probably was stumped out of the wind on the mountain in prague and was killed in czechoslovakia. For the west, it was a big warning signal and the west United States particularly fear that this would be the new model of communist takeover in europe. What happened and czechoslovakia namely is a version from inside rather than the direct attack by the red army. Increasingly, the west feared such action and indeed they feared austria might be next on the list. I think we have time for one last question and i will give it to the floor here. I have a pretty good one from the online audience. We will do to. On the way up to the question on the floor, a recommended reading list. We cant to 20 bibliography of 20 books. The question was, what would you recommend to read for we know whose book we should get for that but other major . I found the best book, i wonder whether my college would agree by a british historian, he wrote the book that covers the negotiations from moscow43 to tehran 1943, those few weeks in the fall of 1943. It is very good. Mark stoler has written about it too. I dont know if there are books that cover all of the conferences. There is considerable literature on yalta. Not too long ago, two years ago at an International Conference, we heard our bird friend talk about potsdam. Much more could be written, but that is usually what happens. Individual books on individual conferences that we dont really have a book that covers it all. By the way, an excellent introduction, Debbie Reynolds book has a Second Chapter that is very good. For the audience watching at home, two of the best books that i have heard and read are both dr. Stolers books and allies in more, britain and america against the axis powers. They are topnotch and you had mentioned professional or mentioned professor reynolds who give a talk on wartime correspondence with stalin, both from winston and from franklin, so that is relatively new and something that opened my eyes. There is also the conference between churchill and roosevelt, 1941 and the atlantic charter. That can be recommended too. Last question here from joe. Thanks again for the presentation. Going back to the travel aspect of all the conferences, was yaltas strategic place for stalin and the sense he could show off the disruption of crimea and was it more dangerous for churchill and fdr to travel to the conferences in the soviet union . Im both of those questions. For stalin it was he sat into a trade and what all the way down. It was safe for him and to show off the destruction and to remind his allies. This might have figured in future debates about mentioning an important issue in yalta and subsequently to remind the western powers that the level of destruction of the soviet union is so immense, 17,000 villages being destroyed is often the number here. If they see it with their own eyes, they will be more forthcoming on german reparations. In other words, the germans repay for reconstruction. You are right, stalin didnt care about the difficulty for churchill and roosevelt to get to yalta. He just cared that number one, he would get there safely and number two, it would be a site that he could thoroughly bud. I think we shouldnt forget about that intelligence aspect. Ladies and gentlemen, around a pause for doctor. Harvard ukrainian history professor sarah plaque he outlines the major issues and decisions of the february 1945