Would Roosevelt have had more success at Yalta if his health had not been so poor?

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
It is generally accepted that the Soviet Union came out of the Yalta Conference with the most gains. It is also generally accepted the Stalin was a master in negotiations, usually getting what he desired. Do you believe if Roosevelt had been in better health he could have negotiated a better deal for the West, especially in east and central Europe?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,827
SoCal
No, I don't think so. Possession is 9/10ths of the law and since Soviet troops were occupying Eastern Europe, the West couldn't really do much about this unless it was actually willing to risk war with the Soviets.

Also, I think that FDR was grateful to Stalin for doing so much of the bleeding in WWII. This meant that less American (and British) blood would have to be shed in the fight against Nazi Germany.

If you want a better deal for the West, you might as well have Stauffenberg's plot succeed in July 1944. Back then, the Soviets have not yet left Soviet territory.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
Churchill seemed more combative toward Stalin, but without the support of Roosevelt, he stood little chance to change things. I agree, Stalin was not giving up what he had gained by conquest. A strong combined front by Churchill and FDR would have not likely changed the outcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sparky and Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,827
SoCal
If I may be allowed to put forward a theory, I suspect that Churchill might have still been pissed off at Stalin for the M-R Pact and thus was more willing to confront Stalin than Roosevelt was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rodger

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
If I may be allowed to put forward a theory, I suspect that Churchill might have still been pissed off at Stalin for the M-R Pact and thus was more willing to confront Stalin than Roosevelt was.
Do you believe that Churchill may have been more concerned about what was happening on the continent than Roosevelt, especially with the U.S. still engaged in a war with Japan? I know Roosevelt was anxious to get the USSR involved in the Pacific front. He may have been willing to give Stalin parts of Europe in exchange.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,827
SoCal
Do you believe that Churchill may have been more concerned about what was happening on the continent than Roosevelt, especially with the U.S. still engaged in a war with Japan? I know Roosevelt was anxious to get the USSR involved in the Pacific front. He may have been willing to give Stalin parts of Europe in exchange.
Wasn't Britain also fighting against Japan, though?

Still, I agree that the US was more committed to the war against Japan than Britain was. Thus, you might very well be correct in regards to this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rodger

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
Wasn't Britain also fighting against Japan, though?

Still, I agree that the US was more committed to the war against Japan than Britain was. Thus, you might very well be correct in regards to this.
A documentary I watched stated that Churchill was also trying to keep the U.K. relevant, not just in Europe but on a global basis. His inability to intervene persuasively at Yalta and influence the outcome was the the signal that the U.S. and USSR were now the world powers. Certainly, the USSR then became the most influential nation on the continent that was on the continent (that is, with the possible exception of the U.S.).
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,809
Stockport Cheshire UK
If I may be allowed to put forward a theory, I suspect that Churchill might have still been pissed off at Stalin for the M-R Pact and thus was more willing to confront Stalin than Roosevelt was.
Churchill was opposed to Soviet Communism from the start of the revolution in 1917, he only sided with the Soviets in 41 because he hated the Nazis even more.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,991
Sydney
Churchill first concern above all others , was the Empire and it's connecting sea lane
he sold Poland at Tehran , never mentioning the fact to the London Polish government
quite happy to have the polish division and units bleeding for Britain with a few speeches as counterpart

He did send British troops to bleed in Greece to protect the Mediterranean , empire oblige
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,210
Welsh Marches
That's ridiculous, there was nothing that Churchill could have done to prevent the Russians maintaining control over Poland, and he tried to negotiate a half share of influence in Hungary and Yugoslavia (which of course control the sea-lanes to the East) but could only achieve his way with Greece. I know it's fashionable to kick Churchill but this kind of thing is just silly. At least Churchill did make some effort to stand up against Stalin, getting precious little support from Roosevelt; but the West would have had to go to war with Stalin to have any chance of preventing him doing what he wanted in countries that were occupied by Soviet troops. I don't like the way that Churchill behaved toward the Poles, but it is only possible to sell something if you already have it in your possession.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist and Rodger