The full text is 2600 words, it is not easy to be original, please support more. Related video: What "problem" can not be put on the table at the Crimean Conference of 1945 ??
At the Yalta Conference held in Crimea in 1945, the three giants discussed a series of issues, such as how to deal with the German and Polish problems after the war, the territory, the government, the division of power in the Balkans, Yugoslavia, and the establishment of the United Nations, forming the so-called Yalta system.
This system greatly changed the world pattern after World War II and still affects the entire world today. In addition to these problems, the Big Three also signed an agreement on the Far East, which was called the "Yalta Secret Pact" because it was kept secret at the time.
It is clear that this Yalta Compact is closely related to us, and unfortunately, this agreement was made a new appeasement by the Big Three, like the Munich conspiracy of the past, secretly trading and selling out the interests of allies, and finally being defined by history as the most disgraceful page of the Yalta Conference.
At that time, Germany's defeat was certain, and victory in the European theater was just around the corner, but the Asian side was still not stopping, and the United States hoped that the Soviet Union would send troops to attack Japan as soon as possible, because Japan's opponent was too tenacious and caused great trouble for the Americans. Note this time, in early February 1945, the US military launched the Philippine Campaign just ended, that is to say, it hit the second island chain of Japan's so-called defensive circle, and the five-star general MacArthur landed in the Philippines before.
The Americans did not have time to rest, and immediately the tragic Battle of Iwo Jima began, in which American casualties exceeded those of the Japanese for the first time. The more tragic battle of Okinawa Island followed, which caused the Americans to be devastated. The thought of a complete defeat of Japan would cost millions of American casualties made Roosevelt, who had just been re-elected as president for the fourth time, anxious.
At this time, the Americans tried by all means to pull the Soviet Union to the end. Roosevelt believed that as a wartime ally, the United States could help the Soviet Union defeat Germany in Europe, and why could the Soviet Union not help the United States defeat Japan in Asia? It seems that there is nothing wrong, but who is Stalin? Now the United States has a request from the Soviet Union and must put itself in the right position. Moreover, when the second battlefield was opened, didn't you the United States also delay again and again, from 1942 to 1944, what does it mean to be a wartime ally?
In Yalta, Stalin did his utmost as a landlord, and despite the scarcity of supplies during the war, the table in Yalta was full of caviar and vodka. Hearing that Roosevelt liked to drink martinis and could not find lemons to accompany them, Stalin ordered a fruit-bearing lemon tree to be transported overnight from his native Georgia, in short, to entertain Roosevelt comfortably.
When Roosevelt talked about asking the Soviet Union to open a second battlefield in the Far East, Stalin really looked embarrassed, and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief said: The Soviet Union joined the combat division against Japan without a name, Japan has never attacked the Soviet Union, and there is still the Soviet-Japanese neutrality treaty in 1941, the Soviet Union can never tear up the treaty, there is no legitimate reason to attack Japan, right?
Perhaps how the Soviet Union attacked Poland and Finland before, Stalin forgot all these things. After all, it was a generation of strategists, and Stalin changed his words: "Unless this concerns the interests of the Soviet people, it is difficult to explain to the Soviet people."
What are the benefits? Stalin offered a series of conditions: the southern part of Sakhalin and its neighboring islands, the Kuril Islands were returned to the USSR; maintaining the status quo in Outer Mongolia; Internationalization of Dalian Commercial Port; the Soviet Union-operated Middle East Railway and the South Manchurian Railway; The USSR leased the port of Lushun as a naval base, etc. Simply put, it is the restoration of all the interests of Tsarist Russia in the Far East before the Russo-Japanese War of 1905. However, except for Sakhalin and the South Kuril Islands, China's interests are at stake. How did you involve us in the historical grievances between the USSR and Japan?
It is said that such sky-high conditions should not be met, but Roosevelt actually agreed one by one, and it seems that there were signs before the sudden death of the president two months later, perhaps Roosevelt was seriously ill at that time, and people were indeed confused. Even so, Roosevelt suggested that the Soviet Union needed to negotiate with China on issues involving Chinese interests.
But Stalin did not think so, and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief said: There is no need to talk with China at present, and when the Soviet Union draws 25 divisions from the western battlefield to the Far East, it will be the time to negotiate with China.
The USSR said so, and then did so. Think about when the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance was signed, on August 14, 1945, Japan officially surrendered the next day, the Soviet Union's million-strong army had already sent troops to the northeast, and the Far East campaign had been fought for a week.
The meaning of the USSR is obvious, you are not capable of driving out the Japanese, you have to rely on the USSR, Stalin knew that you had no choice. What happens if I don't say yes? First of all, the Soviet Union may brake sharply and stop attacking the Japanese Kwantung Army, just like Feng Guozhang drank the Yangtze River in the past, and was suddenly stopped by Yuan Shikai and stopped attacking Wuchang without moving. If so, the consequences are also unimaginable.
Taking a step back, what should we do if the Soviet army in the northeast does not withdraw to defeat the Japanese army? The Russians have not done this before, how did the Russo-Japanese War start in those years? It was not an excuse for Tsarist Russia to annihilate the Boxer Rebellion and send troops, and when the other powers withdrew, Tsarist Russia still relied on the northeast and did not leave.
In Yalta, Stalin also said that it was inconvenient for him to appear as a party, and that the United States would inform China of the agreement in the future. The ball was kicked to Roosevelt, the famous president, who became an accomplice in betraying his allies before he died. No wonder when he later learned the truth, Chiang scolded Roosevelt in his diary for being "mediocre and old", and canceled his participation in Roosevelt's funeral in a fit of anger.
See, this is an ally, who does not hesitate to betray its allies for its own interests, and also calls it grasping the big and letting go of the small. It can be seen that you are not strong and have no right to speak, and sacrificing your interests at a critical moment is not negotiable, even if you are a victorious country.
There is also a question in this, what was the attitude of Britain at that time? This secret treaty was signed by the three giants, and it is said that the Far East question has little to do with Britain, and Churchill also claimed to be not interested in the Far East at that time.
Churchill was consistently anti-Soviet, something even he admitted. On the day of the outbreak of the Soviet-German war, Churchill was so excited that the pressure of a year had finally shifted to the East, and he said in a public address to the British people: In the past 25 years, no one has been more anti-Soviet than me, and although we are now going to fight side by side against the Nazis, I do not want to take back my position.
Moreover, Churchill constantly reminded Roosevelt at the end of World War II to warn the Soviet Union from becoming big and prevent it from overexpanding. It is said that Britain should not have followed the United States to curry favor with the Soviet Union. But the fact is that when he saw the text of the agreement on the Far East, Churchill could not wait to be the first to sign his name.
Why are anti-Soviet fighters unusual? In fact, among the big three, Churchill was scheming, and this old British politician put aside the relationship: the Americans compromised with the Soviet Union on the Far East issue, and had nothing to do with Britain; While privately expressing to Stalin "support for the Soviet Union to have the port of Lushun."
As early as the beginning of the Pacific War, after Japan occupied Hong Kong, we proposed to take back Hong Kong after the war. At the Cairo Conference in 1943, Roosevelt also expressed his support and "suggested" Churchill that Hong Kong be returned after the war. Unexpectedly, Churchill, who has always obeyed Roosevelt's words, quit this time, not only sternly refused, but also threatened in public: As long as I am alive, no one wants to take Hong Kong.
This Churchill was a notoriously stubborn old man, especially in the treatment of colonies, almost neurotic, probably he personally witnessed the British Empire from glory to decline, personally experienced two world wars to hurt Britain, anyway, the British Empire lost even a small colony.
But the general trend of history is inviolable, India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka in Asia after World War II; Israel, Jordan, etc. in the Middle East became independent one after another, and even Ireland, which had been around for hundreds of years, broke away from the British Commonwealth. Even during Churchill's second term as prime minister, Egypt, Libya, etc. in Africa became independent from British rule, and later almost all British colonies became independent, could Churchill stop it?
At that time, it was precisely because of the "demand" of Britain that Stalin deliberately wooed Churchill. Churchill understood and tried his best to cooperate. He knew very well that to support Stalin on the Far East issue was to support himself, which was tantamount to showing the whole world: Don't always focus on Britain occupying Hong Kong, and didn't the Soviet Union also occupy the port of Lushun in the Far East?
With such bandit logic, how to say about this British? It can only be said that these two countries originally did not deal with it, but in the matter of infringing on the interests of other countries, they jointly interpreted what it means to be in cahoots and collude.