Serhii plokhii here, the director of the Ukrainian Research institute at harvard. As i mentioned this morning, he s been on our list for a long time and we finally found the time to bring him down here. His titles include the last the cossack the forgotten pastors of the eastern front, for peace. Ladies and gentlemen, dr. Serhii plokhii. [applause] plokhii thank you for the introduction. Thank you to the organizers for bringing me here. I also want to thank all of you , these coming from boston today, being as it is coming inside to listen to presentations like mine, i really appreciate that sacrifice. Thank you. The organizers really couldnt find a better time to have a conference like that, given that we are really having our symposium 75 years almost day today to the conference that took place in crimea back in february of 1945. And the conference that is still very much with us on many levels. 4 of this year, that was exactly the anniversary of the conference. Coverage,the media and of course of the conference was not forgotten. Thee were pieces online on anniversary of the conference coming from russia. There was an oped in the new york times. There was a major expose on the bbc. That ins interesting each of these contexts, in each country the titles were different and emphasis were different. So the conference is important for all of these countries, but for different reasons. In the oped that title was Something Like we still live in a world made by stalin, in germany it was a conference made in the postwar world, and in russia it was about what a wonderful time it was and may be the founders of the United Nations should get together and Start Talking again. Well, um, yalta is the conference that is remembered not just on anniversaries a light february 4 o light february 4 of 2020, it is the conference and that is there [laughter] orther it is february, april may, it does not matter because of its a symbolic importance. Its symbolic importance. Oneou think this is only particular situation where somebody wants to make fun out of any of this, as you can see on the screen, this is not exactly the case. Every president ends up to be in a photograph that will be addressed did adjusted. There would be chinese leaders or german leaders dependent on the situation. The question is really why. I do not think there is a more iconic image that exists of diplomacy. Diplomacy of world war ii, but in general. And in that sense yalta keeps coming back again and again. Was veryountry, yalta much part of major debates and discussions which were on history, but also on politics in the late 1940s, 50s, 60s and 70s. And through most of the cold war, yalta was there. The question that certainly one has good reason to ask, why yalta . We talked about, and in the thellent presentation by professor, there was a discussion of the conferences that led to yalta. There was also mention of pot stamp. Potsdam. Yalta is happening very much in the middle of the war, but it is still considered as a peace conference to the degree that there was any after world war ii. If you think about it from the m, why yalta . One reason is yalta is very important because those decisions were made. Some of them prepared by previous conferences, others finalized at potsdam. Another resume another reason was it was the last conference of president roosevelt. That was really his last major, accomplishment or failure, depending on how people look at that in the national arena. And in the 40s and 50s, as you know, issues of history can become very political and in the discussions and debates between republicans and democrats, that more thane was there any other conference at the time. There was little interest to go after truman. No one believed he would last for so long. Certainly, the democratic legacy was associated with president roosevelt. Is notse politics it for the politics of the moment, politics of the year. Not the only reason why yalta was so prominent. Another reason was when it comes to world war ii, the image emerged for some very good reasons that it was a good war in the sense to the degree that words can be good. In gay sense that the war that was fought in a sense that the war was fought for the right reasons. And also the war that actually brought at a certain level the results that were expected. You can compare the occupation of germany, then later the raq,pation of iran or i sorry, as attempts to model it on what happened in germany or japan. And it did not happen that way. So that also explains may be one of the reasons why it is world war ii, not the korean war, movesam and so forth that so prominently in the american historical imagination. Notthe good war ended with something that most people expected it to end. It ended in cold war. There were High Expectations with the United Nations, with the victory of germany there would be a different kind of International Order that would come into existence. And a very different kind of International Order did come to the fore, but that was actually divided into two warring camps. Mainne of them, the anniversary was the former world war ii ally, the soviet union. First under stalin, then under his successors. And there was a need to explain what actually happened. From that point of view, yalta happened to be an easy explanation. Either it was fdrs bad health, es, whopresence of hugh was later put in prison and the documents supported the argument that he was spying for the soviets. And there was also mr. White, that was mentioned earlier, who was working within the American Administration while working under stalin. That was easy to explain the start of the cold war, the form of the grand alliance, to a degree that the result of certain decisions, wrong decisions that were made at a very particular time and place. And that time was the yalta conference and the place was yalta. Period of time after the conference, in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, the thinking and writing about the conference came through a number of stages. The debate started very early on with publishing of memoirs by some of the participants of the conference on the american side, like the secretary of state, burns, and his predecessor, the secretary of state who wrote a book roosevelt and the russians, the yalta conference. And thesn issues were what i described, to what degree the world we thought was the outcome of mistakes or unpreparedness lets say on the part of fdr, that was burns argument that happened at the yalta conference. And some parts of europe, in in polandr poland, itself and polish immigration, and in Eastern Europe yalta became a symbol of betrayal. N to the degree that munich has been taken, a western betrayal of allies into smaller countries. Went mostlyd 50s under the understanding of yalta as the bad conference and ended a good war. And as a result we get not perfect peace. The 1960s brought to the fore t all sorts ands of all kinds. The result of that reevaluation of yalta came in a boat published by book which is called yalta, and the authors take on the conference was there was no betrayal. That if you look in terms of real politics, what goals had the soviet union, what goals had the u. S. , the outcome was not bad at all. Of theitics was, yes,tion said this is probably true but this is truth researched in the british and american archives. They know that there was maneuvering, that they were positions and longterm strategies, and so on. The soviet documents and it soviet position looked like a black box because there was no access to those archives, so the author was trying to treat stolen stalin not only as good or as bad as the western politicians, but also to a degree that the argument is robbed of stalin was his victory by the western maneuvering. At the end of the cold war, of course we brought access to the soviet archives. Or allowed us to look at the conference not just from the perspective of the sources we have on the western side, but also from the soviet side. Many found out that stalin was quite dishonest in the position he was taking, the way how he was playing the game, the fact that the premises were bugged, that all this information was reported to him. Anotherwas in many ways correction to our understanding of how the game of diplomacy was played at yalta. That. Skip let me now go through a number i can probably cover everything discussed at yalta, after all it took them eight days to do that and i have roughly 40 minutes, but i will try to do my best. I will try to touch upon the major themes associated with the start of the conference, then major blocks of the issues, the questions discussed there. I promise you that whatever i i will not be able to cover everything, but i will be more than happy to answer questions after that. Eo let me start with th location of the conference. There were already questions about that. Ins is a photo of the palace yalta. Like a really nice place to be, right . To come there. One of the warmest places that than in the territory back then in the territory of the soviet union. There was one problem. This was taken during the summer months. Fdr, Winston Churchill and stalin it was an easier trip, but Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt traveled far away to come to crimea. Winston churchill said if they would spend 10 years looking for a worse place, they would not find one. And if you think that he was he was flying from the mediterranean and fdr was flying from virginia, maybe not, but they were coming from much farther places. The takeover by the workers and peasants of those the czarss th palaces. Nazisere destroyed by the and had to be rebuilt. It was a question if it was stolens choice and wanted to show crimea. Ns preference was odettes, odessa, where it was logistically easier to organize the conference and is still warm, but he had to convince fdr to come all the way to the soviet union. Harry hopkins was a very influential when it came to foreign policy. He knew that fdr read mark twain and mark twain traveled to the crimea, so that is where he met the russian czar. So crimea was on fdrs map somewhere, because of the crimean war, because of mark twain and fdr wanted to go to the places he had not seen before. Odessa did not sound right, but crimea fit the bill and eventually that is what happened. What the western leaders sought in crimea was not just the destruction done by the fighting and by the germans. A few months before the conference, 200,000 crimean tartars were forcefully resettled by stalin in the area, so adding to the depopulation and devastation. This is where the conference was taking place. There along the c line sea line. Why if itod question, was such a devastated place, if it was so cold and unpleasant, why then it was yalta . The main reason was that stalin refused to go anywhere else. After afraid of flying flying to tehran he had problems with his ears and decided not to do that. He was also quite paranoid in a sense he did not want to go anywhere he was not under the protection. Also atehran, this was place half occupied by the red was completely occupied by the red army, and yalta was not an exception from there. He also bugged the premises, which of course helped him with negotiations. But why did the leaders of the western world decide to go through all that trouble and travel so far as yalta . The professor mentioned fdr could not fly above a certain level. And those work conditions reallynditions that were ith unpressurized cabins, so was really difficult with his Health Condition at that time. So why did they do that . The reason was they actually needed something from stalin. They were there to negotiate with him not just the end of the war, but the piece after peace after, before the soviets were in berlin, before they would give up control in eastern and Central Europe. That was another reason why Winston Churchill flew to moscow in 1944, to make an agreement because he saw how fast the red army was moving and he thought if i can get anything from stalin in terms of an agreement, this is the right time. So fdr puts his life on the line. He could very well and return from that trip. Plane, or toin the fly over the german positions in the mediterranean, and they were shooting at them. Tothat is very important keep in mind about the yalta conference. The place where it takes place also tells you something about the disposition of forces who needs whom and who has the trump cards. This is joseph stalin. Minister of foreign affairs. They are portrayed here, this is one of the photos from the soviet archives that became available after 1991. They are waiting for fdr and Winston Churchill before the famous photograph was taken that with. Ted the presentation that would be 20 minutes before, when they are waiting in the court of the palace. That is president roosevelt iner landing at the airfield the crimea. You see that he is tired, he is sick, you can see that he does not have much time. Photo, in my opinion, also stresses the point i tried to make a few minutes ago about who needed who and the sacrifice of the fdr mde, and what he prepared to undertake and what reasons he had to undertake them. He told his son where his will was whe he decided to go to yaltan when he decided to go to yalta. Now, lets be more specific. What did fdr want and need . Why did he go . . At the top of his agenda is the creation of what became known as the United Nations. The creation of a new world world order with liberal institutions. A world where there is no spheres of influence. And enrolled in which world that would fit very well the pragmatic interests of the u. S. In terms of business, but also would it look like ideologically from the perspective of the United States, as a country that comes into existence in revolution against an empire. That it is very important to understand for the mindset of 1945. It is important to understand in terms of the tension that would be there between the british and americans, because the americans would be very suspicious and that what churchill is trying to this, going through the soft underbelly of europe into the center of europe, this is about british imperialism, not common goals. This is not the best way to defeat nazi germany, the british are just trying to control Central Europe, secure the control of the mediterranean, so there is a lot of tension of that kind there. The United Nations is at the top of fdrs agenda and that is supported by people in the state department. And then there are other generals. Generals want fdr to go to yalta to negotiate their position in the pacific war. Because the estimates are if the war actually, if the battle starts on the main islands per se, the losses could be up to 750,000 american soldiers. So they need allies, they need the soviet union there. Is,dy knows what the bomb whether it would work or not, whether it would blow up half the United States, or it can be delivered somewhere. It is a big unknown and you need a lot of imagination to think that the atom that you cannot see, you can split it and create a major explosion. View, andat point of what becomes obvious by the summer of 1945, by the time of obvious at all in february of 1945. You could be laughed at if you would suggest Something Like that to the average person in 1945. That is the thing you can see, but it could blow up half the world. So these are the main points on fdrs agenda. Another soviet or photo from the soviet archives, here you can see Winston Churchill. He is not happy. He is not happy for a number of reasons. And my colleague, professor bishop, will probably be talking about his happiness and unhappiness. But one of the reasons why he is he realizes for the first time that britain becomes a third rate power. Literally third rate. So at the top would be the soviet union and the United States, and number three, still not bad, pretty good, especially by todays standards. But britain would be there. It was not obvious earlier when most of the soldiers on the western side, that were on the front lines, they were british. Now the americans after dday outnumber the british. The british are the junior partner already in this alliance that is working in the west, and when you bring in stalin that diminishes the british negotiating power. And he wants a lot. E gavets really to h away the balkans to a degree in 1944 to stalin, but he is not prepared to do the same with poland. So the future of germany, the role of france as a great power with which britain can actually ally in the future and help to keep the rest of Central Europe away from the soviet union is important for him. So there is a long list of things he wants to achieve, but his negotiating power is diminished compared to what has happened, or what happened before that. Map that helps twonderstand why those western leaders are at yalta. Us understand the first day of the discussions that was dedicated to the situation on the front. It is interesting. This is from time magazine, a nice way to present that the allies are working together, but as it can see only one ally is on the offensive. The reason is the conference is daking place after the an the u. S. And british are still recovering from a major surprise battle. They are not prepared to continue their advance. The soviet side is advancing. They start their major offensive on january 12, 1945. And by the time of the yalta conference, they are 40 miles away from berlin. They already have established on order. Meet,n fdr and stalin they have this tihing, who will be first the americans or soviet . There is no question the soviets will be there first. Whoever has more divisions on successes tod more show has the louder voice in the negotiations. That brings us back to something that we keep forgetting, whether we want to or not my yalta is not a peace conference, this is a wartime conference. What is happening on the front lines at that moment gives a lot of power or takes a lot of power from the negotiator. This is an illustration to what we had already started to discuss in terms of who contributed what to the defeat of nazi germany, a separate question from the defeat of japan, right . When we talk about contribution of Different Countries to the victory in world war ii, we must remembe