Copy of Negotiating with Russia
Published on Jan 14, 2016
No Description
MORE DECKS TO EXPLORE
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Negotiating with Russia
Photo by Ana Paula Hirama
1
Learning Objectives
• Appreciation of how differences in ideology, in political ethics and in military ethos constitute separate diplomatic and political “cultures”
• A case study of how countries with such differences in cultures negotiated an alliance during World War II. These were probably the first major "cross-cultural" negotiations in diplomatic history.
• Links with negotiations theory
This presentation draws on the following reading list:
1. The Cold War by John Lewis Ghaddis
2. Stalingrad by Anthony Beevor
3. George Marshall by Debi and Irwin Unger
• Appreciation of how differences in ideology, in political ethics and in military ethos constitute separate diplomatic and political “cultures”
• A case study of how countries with such differences in cultures negotiated an alliance during World War II. These were probably the first major "cross-cultural" negotiations in diplomatic history.
• Links with negotiations theory
This presentation draws on the following reading list:
1. The Cold War by John Lewis Ghaddis
2. Stalingrad by Anthony Beevor
3. George Marshall by Debi and Irwin Unger
Photo by Ana Paula Hirama
Clash of ideologies
The Cold War was the great rivalry of the 20th century. It pitted the Western Bloc (The Atlantic Alliance/NATO) and against the "Eastern" Bloc (the Soviet Union and its allies in the Warsaw Pact).
The term "cold" is used because there was no large-scale fighting directly between the two sides, although there were major regional wars, known as proxy wars, supported by the two sides.
Huntingdon has described the Cold War as a Civil War in the West. But the difference in ideology, in military cultures, and in political ethics were so different that they were for all practical purposes different civilisations.
The term "cold" is used because there was no large-scale fighting directly between the two sides, although there were major regional wars, known as proxy wars, supported by the two sides.
Huntingdon has described the Cold War as a Civil War in the West. But the difference in ideology, in military cultures, and in political ethics were so different that they were for all practical purposes different civilisations.
Photo by CassAnaya
The Cold War opponents were allies during World War II, defeating Germany and Japan together.
They became enemies soon after the end of the War
The Cold War followed the most violent war in history, World War II, in which the Allies (US+UK+USSR with France & China in supplementary roles) fought against the Axis (Nazi Germany + Japan with Italy in a supplementary role).
Photo by Marion Doss
The first "Cross-Cultural" Negotiations
World War II lasted for about 6 years. The first 2 &1/2 years saw dramatic Axis successes and the Axis powers appeared poised for world domination. The Allies however mounted a vigorous defence followed by a mighty attack from various sides and ultimately prevailed. A series of major negotiations were held during War War II amongst the Allies on strategy during the war. These conferences literally decided the fate of the World.
Roosevelt + Churchill
The Conferences were complex structures to facilitate several simultaneous conversations. The dialogue between Churchill and Roosevelt laid the foundation of the core of the understanding within the Western world that resulted in the United Nations and the “liberal world order.”
Roosevelt + Churchill+Stalin
Churchill and Roosevelt met with Stalin in another set of Conferences to decide Allied grand strategy and to bargain about the costs and spoils of war.
Photo by FDR Presidential Library & Museum
Roosevelt + Churchill met in Washington DC thrice, in Dec 41-Jan 42, Jun 42 and May 43
Photo by citron_smurf
Roosevelt + Churchill met in Quebec, Canada, twice, in Aug 43 and Sep 44
Photo by Artur Staszewski
Roosevelt + Churchill met in Cairo in Nov 43
Photo by archer10 (Dennis) (66M Views)
Churchill met Stalin in Moscow in Aug 42 and Sep 44
These conferences decided grand strategy on a scale never seen before or later
These conferences, and other downstream meetings (such as Bretton Woods, Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco) took decisions of breath-taking implications and gravity. These include:-
a) Adoption of the Atlantic Charter that formed the basis for the United Nations Declaration
b) A strategy to fight a total war that decided priorities and apportioned limited resources between 2 enemies – Germany and Japan
c) Decided on what to do with the defeated nations and peoples
d) A war fighting strategy that came up with major innovations in how militaries were organized, supplied, commanded and fought
a) Adoption of the Atlantic Charter that formed the basis for the United Nations Declaration
b) A strategy to fight a total war that decided priorities and apportioned limited resources between 2 enemies – Germany and Japan
c) Decided on what to do with the defeated nations and peoples
d) A war fighting strategy that came up with major innovations in how militaries were organized, supplied, commanded and fought
Photo by ell brown
Churchill and Roosevelt worked out the following amongst themselves:-
(a) the Atlantic Charter
(b) the concept of the United Nations
(c) the Atlantic Alliance & NATO
(d) the decision to defeat Germany first, and Japan later(
e) post-war “spheres of influence” in Europe(
f) A system of Combined Chiefs of Staff and Theater Commanders
Downstream conferences created the IMF, the World Bank, and started the tradition of international economic management.
Photo by DncnH
Churchill (later Attlee), Roosevelt (later Truman) and Stalin decided (a)Final plans for defeat of Germany & Japam, (b)postwar Europe plans, (c) plans for the United Nations, (d) post-war territorial adjustments in Europe
The second meeting
Photo by Edmund Nigel Gall
Washington Dec 1941-Jan 1942 Outcomes
- Germany, not Japan or Italy, must be defeated first
- The United Nations Declaration
- Combined Chiefs of Staff, Theater Commander
This meeting took place after Pearl Harbour. Japan had entered the war, launching surprise attacks against the US in Pearl Harbour and invading British territories in Asia - Malaya, Singapore.
Photo by manumilou
Agreement was difficult due to basic differences at multiple levels.
(a) Grand strategy level
The outcomes were not easily arrived at. In this part of the presentation we will look at some of the differences that made these outcomes difficult to negotiate. Let us begin by looking at differences in objectives at the grand strategic level. The slides on this part are based on work by John Lewis Ghaddis
What did America want from the War?
It wanted SECURITY. The question was HOW?
WHAT DID the Americans want after the war? Unquestionably security; but they were not certain of what they would have to do to obtain it.
World War II posed a dilemma: how could American exceptionalism and global security be reconciled ?
This was a relatively new challenge for the United States. It had traditionally been isolationist – partly by conviction; partly because the vast Atlantic and Pacific Oceans gave it a natural sphere of influence that was beyond challenge.
Photo by Vince Alongi
America did not want a sphere of influence or colonies. It sought GLOBAL INFLUENCE FOR THEIR IDEAS - LIBERTY, DEMOCRACY
T
Photo by amslerPIX
America is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all but is champion and vindicator only of her own: John Quincy Adams,1821
Despite an international ideology, American practices were isolationist: The United States would serve as an example; the rest of the world would have to decide how and under what circumstances to embrace it. “She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all,” Secretary of State John Quincy Adams proclaimed in 1821, but “[s]he is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”
Photo by cliff1066™
Wilson & Roosevelt felt differently. US could not afford to be isolationist - it had global interests
Security required the world to be made safe for democracy: Wilson
Only with World War I did the United States break out of this pattern. Worried that Imperial Germany might defeat Great Britain and France, Woodrow Wilson persuaded his countrymen that American military might was needed to restore the European balance of power—but even he justified this geopolitical objective in ideological terms. The world, he insisted, had to be made “safe for democracy.”
Wilson did not entirely succeed inspite of herculean Versailles/League of Nations efforts.
Wilson did not entirely succeed inspite of herculean Versailles/League of Nations efforts.
Photo by OZinOH
Roosevelt aims
- Sustain coalition/ alliance to fight war
- Support of allies to shape a secure post-war world
- Peace would only be possible through an effective collective security system
- Rally US domestic public opinion in support of 1,2 & 3 above
"Roosevelt had four great wartime priorities. The first was to sustain allies—chiefly Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and (less successfully) Nationalist China—because there was no other way to achieve victory: the United States could not fight Germany and Japan alone. The second was to secure allied cooperation in shaping the postwar settlement, for without it there would be little prospect for lasting peace. The third had to do with the nature of that settlement. Roosevelt expected his allies to endorse one that would remove the most probable causes of future wars. That meant a new collective security organization with the power to deter and if necessary punish aggression, as well as a revived global economic system equipped to prevent a new global depression. Finally, the settlement would have to be “sellable” to the American people: F.D.R. was not about to repeat Wilson’s mistake of taking the nation beyond where it was prepared to go. There would be no reversion to isolationism, then, after World War II. But the United States would not be prepared either—any more than the Soviet Union would be—to accept a postwar world that resembled its prewar predecessor." John Lewis Gaddis
Photo by Tony Fischer Photography
Wilson & Roosevelt felt differently. US could not afford to be isolationist - it had global interests
3(b)
STALINS OBJECTIVES DIFFERED FUNDAMENTALLY
"Stalin’s postwar goals were security for himself, his regime, his country, and his ideology, in precisely that order."
"Stalin’s postwar goals were security for himself, his regime, his country, and his ideology, in precisely that order. He sought to make sure that no internal challenges could ever again endanger his personal rule, and that no external threats would ever again place his country at risk. The interests of communists elsewhere in the world, admirable though those might be, would never outweigh the priorities of the Soviet state as he had determined them. Wartime expenditures in blood and treasure, Stalin believed, should largely determine who got what after the war: the Soviet Union, therefore, would get a lot." John Lewis Gaddis
Photo by rich115
FOR STALIN, SECURITY=TERRITORY
Wartime expenditures in blood and treasure, Stalin believed, should largely determine who got what after the war: the Soviet Union, therefore, would get a lot.
Not only would it regain the territories it had lost to the Germans during World War II; it would also retain the territories it had taken as a result of the opportunistic but shortsighted “nonaggression” pact Stalin had concluded with Hitler in August, 1939—portions of Finland, Poland, and Romania, all of the Baltic States. It would require that states beyond these expanded borders remain within Moscow’s sphere of influence. It would seek territorial concessions at the expense of Iran and Turkey (including control of the Turkish Straits), as well as naval bases in the Mediterranean.
Not only would it regain the territories it had lost to the Germans during World War II; it would also retain the territories it had taken as a result of the opportunistic but shortsighted “nonaggression” pact Stalin had concluded with Hitler in August, 1939—portions of Finland, Poland, and Romania, all of the Baltic States. It would require that states beyond these expanded borders remain within Moscow’s sphere of influence. It would seek territorial concessions at the expense of Iran and Turkey (including control of the Turkish Straits), as well as naval bases in the Mediterranean.
Stalin wanted expansion of USSR into Europe
Stalin wanted a division of Europe into spheres of influence. That is exactly what Roosevelt feared. Stalin insisted "on a sphere of influence that would ensure the presence of “friendly” nations along the Soviet Union’s postwar borders. Roosevelt and Churchill repeatedly pressed Stalin to allow free elections in the Baltic States, Poland, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe. At the Yalta Conference he agreed to do so, but without the slightest intention of honoring his commitment. “Do not worry,” he reassured his foreign minister, Vyacheslav Molotov. “We can implement it in our own way later. The heart of the matter is the correlation of forces.”
So Stalin got the territorial acquisitions and the sphere of influence he wanted: the Soviet Union’s borders were moved several hundred miles to the west, and the Red Army installed subservient regimes throughout the rest of Eastern Europe. Not all of them were as yet communist—the Kremlin leader was, for the moment, flexible on that point—but none would challenge the projection of Soviet influence into the center of Europe. The Americans and British had hoped for a different outcome: one in which the Eastern Europeans, especially the Poles—Germany’s first victim in World War II—would choose their own governments." John Lewis Gaddis
So Stalin got the territorial acquisitions and the sphere of influence he wanted: the Soviet Union’s borders were moved several hundred miles to the west, and the Red Army installed subservient regimes throughout the rest of Eastern Europe. Not all of them were as yet communist—the Kremlin leader was, for the moment, flexible on that point—but none would challenge the projection of Soviet influence into the center of Europe. The Americans and British had hoped for a different outcome: one in which the Eastern Europeans, especially the Poles—Germany’s first victim in World War II—would choose their own governments." John Lewis Gaddis
3(c)
STALINS OBJECTIVES DIFFERED FUNDAMENTALLY
Stalin converted East Germany into a vassal state
Stalin "would punish a defeated and devastated Germany through military occupation, property expropriations, reparations payments, and ideological transformation."
Photo by Chris Benseler
3(d)
WHAT DID UK WANT?
UK goal: Survival at all costs
"Finally, a word about British objectives. They were, as Churchill defined them, much simpler: to survive at all costs, even if this meant relinquishing leadership of the Anglo-American coalition to Washington, even if it meant weakening the British empire, even if it also meant collaborating with the Soviet Union, a regime the younger Churchill had hoped, in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution, to crush." John Lewis Gaddis
Photo by Leo Reynolds
UK goal: Contain US influence
"The British would attempt to influence the Americans as much as possible—they aspired to the role of Greeks, tutoring the new Romans—but under no circumstances would they get at odds with the Americans." John Lewis Gaddis
Photo by gavjof
3(e)
"Stalin’s goal, therefore, was not to restore a balance of power in Europe, but rather to dominate that continent as thoroughly as Hitler had sought to do"
"From Stalin’s perspective, then, the long-term forces of history would compensate for the catastrophe World War II had inflicted upon the Soviet Union. It would not be necessary to confront the Americans and British directly in order to achieve his objectives. He could simply wait for the capitalists to begin quarreling with one another, and for the disgusted Europeans to embrace communism as an alternative. Stalin’s goal, therefore, was not to restore a balance of power in Europe, but rather to dominate that continent as thoroughly as Hitler had sought to do. He acknowledged, in a wistful but revealing comment in 1947, that “[h]ad Churchill delayed opening the second front in northern France by a year, the Red Army would have come to France. . . . [W]e toyed with the idea of reaching Paris.” John Lewis Gaddis
Photo by agitprop
"never have guessed what depths of calculation, ambition, love of power, jealousy, cruelty, and sly vindictiveness lurked behind this unpretentious façade"
"Sixty-five at the end of the war, the man who ran the Soviet Union was physically exhausted, surrounded by sycophants, personally lonely—but still firmly, even terrifyingly, in control. His scrawny mustache, discolored teeth, pock-marked face, and yellow eyes, an American diplomat recalled, “gave him the aspect of an old battle-scarred tiger. . . . An unforewarned visitor would never have guessed what depths of calculation, ambition, love of power, jealousy, cruelty, and sly vindictiveness lurked behind this unpretentious façade.”" John Lewis Gaddis
Photo by rich115
"long since eliminated all his rivals. The raising of an eyebrow or the flick of a finger, subordinates knew, could mean the difference between life and death"
"Through a series of purges during the 1930s, Stalin had long since eliminated all his rivals. The raising of an eyebrow or the flick of a finger, subordinates knew, could mean the difference between life and death. Strikingly short—only five feet four inches—this paunchy little old man was nonetheless a colossus, bestriding a colossal state. Narcissism, paranoia, and absolute power came together in Stalin he was, within the Soviet Union and the international communist movement, enormously feared—but also widely worshipped." John Lewis Gaddis
Photo by rich115
"By the end of 1930, his agents had arrested or killed some 63,000 opponents of collectivization. By 1932, they had deported over 1.2 million “kulaks”—Stalin’s term for “wealthy” peasants—to remote regions within the U.S.S.R. By 1934 at least 5 million Ukrainians had starved to death from the resulting famine. Stalin then began purging government and party officials, producing the imprisonment of another 3.6 million people and the execution, in just 1937–38, of almost 700,000"
Stalin relied on fear to make his ideology work. "Therein lay the basic ideological asymmetry of the Cold War. It has never been clear how far Lenin intended his dictatorship of the proletariat to extend. He certainly saw the ends of revolution as justifying its means, including the use of terror. But would he have favored concentrating all authority in the hands of a single individual, who would then retain it by imprisoning, exiling, or executing anyone who questioned—or who he thought might question—this process? Whatever Lenin would have done, that is what Stalin did. By the end of 1930, his agents had arrested or killed some 63,000 opponents of collectivization. By 1932, they had deported over 1.2 million “kulaks”—Stalin’s term for “wealthy” peasants—to remote regions within the U.S.S.R. By 1934 at least 5 million Ukrainians had starved to death from the resulting famine. Stalin then began purging government and party officials, producing the imprisonment of another 3.6 million people and the execution, in just 1937–38, of almost 700,000. They included many of Lenin’s surviving associates: the most prominent exception was Leon Trotsky, whom Stalin then hunted down and had murdered in Mexico in 1940. By that time, one historian has estimated, the Stalinist dictatorship had either ended or wrecked the lives of between 10 and 11 million Soviet citizens—all for the purpose of maintaining itself in power." John Lewis Gaddis
Photo by rich115
"As a disillusioned Roosevelt put it two weeks before his death: “[Stalin] has broken every one of the promises he made at Yalta.”"
Photo by rich115
Churchill
- Unabashed imperialist
- Opposed to self-determination; was forced to agree with FDR
- Comments on Indians and Indian nationalism were racist
- Sympathised with Stalin's aim of dividing Europe into spheres of influence
"Winston Churchill is rightly remembered for leading Britain through her finest hour – but what if he also led the country through her most shameful hour? What if, in addition to rousing a nation to save the world from the Nazis, he fought for a raw white supremacism and a concentration camp network of his own?" The Guardian
Photo by cliff1066™
As soon as he could, Churchill charged off to take his part in "a lot of jolly little wars against barbarous peoples"
"The young Churchill charged through imperial atrocities, defending each in turn."
Photo by afagen
"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."
"Many of his colleagues thought Churchill was driven by a deep loathing of democracy for anyone other than the British and a tiny clique of supposedly superior races. This was clearest in his attitude to India. When Mahatma Gandhi launched his campaign of peaceful resistance, Churchill raged that he "ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back." As the resistance swelled, he announced: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."" The Guardian
Photo by British Wallpapers
MOLOTOV
- Oversaw the death of millions
- Personally signed more death warrants of more people than anybody but Stalin
- Never tried to moderate Stalins actions
Premier since 1930, Molotov oversaw the Stalin regime's collectivisation of agriculture. He followed Stalin's line by using a combination of force and propaganda to crush peasant resistance to collectivisation, including the deportation of millions of kulaks (peasants with property) to labour camps. An estimated 7 to 8 million people died, either of starvation or in labour camps, in the process of farm collectivization.
n 1938, out of the 28 People's Commissars in Molotov's Government, 20 were executed on the orders of Molotov and Stalin. Molotov was intimately involved in the processes. Stalin frequently required Molotov and other Politburo members to sign the death warrants of prominent purge victims, and Molotov always did so without question. There is no record of Molotov attempting to moderate the course of the purges or even to save individuals, as some other Soviet officials did. During the Great Purge, he personally approved 372 documented execution lists, more than any other Soviet official, including Stalin. Although Molotov and Stalin signed a public decree in 1938 that disassociated them from the ongoing Great Purge, in private, and even after Stalin's death, Molotov supported the Great Purge and the executions carried out by his government.
He did not object even when Stalin imprisoned his own wife and sent her to the Gulag.
Photo by quapan
Appaling casualty rates
The Red Army suffered appalling casualties. More than half of all military deaths during World War II were Soviet soldiers. The total number of Soviet killed/missing during the Battle of Stalingrad (about 400,000) exceeded the total American deaths during the entire War.
The Red Army and the Soviet leadership - and the Soviet people - accepted this casualty rate as the cost of war.
It is unlikely that any other country could or would such rates of attrition and suffering.
To put things in perspective, a part of the justification for the use of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the desire to avoid casualties amongst US military personnel. That casualty rate was expected to be much lower than what the Soviets accepted in the Battle of Stalingrad.
The Red Army and the Soviet leadership - and the Soviet people - accepted this casualty rate as the cost of war.
It is unlikely that any other country could or would such rates of attrition and suffering.
To put things in perspective, a part of the justification for the use of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the desire to avoid casualties amongst US military personnel. That casualty rate was expected to be much lower than what the Soviets accepted in the Battle of Stalingrad.
Untitled Slide
Soviet commanders were notorious for being profligate with their men's lives.
This is a quote attributed to the most famous (and successful) Soviet commander Marshal Zhukov. The less charitable version of the quote is "The best way to clear a minefield is to march a battalion of infantry through it."
This is a quote attributed to the most famous (and successful) Soviet commander Marshal Zhukov. The less charitable version of the quote is "The best way to clear a minefield is to march a battalion of infantry through it."
Stalin made many changes to No 227, commonly known as “Not One Step Backwards" & signed it. The order was to be read to all Red Army troops. “Panic-mongers and cowards must be destroyed on the spot. The retreat mentality must be decisively eliminated. Army commanders who have allowed the voluntary abandonment of positions must be removed and sent for immediate trial by tribunal.” Anyone who surrendered was a “traitor to the Motherland”. Each army had to organize “three to five well armed detachments (up to 200 men each) to form a 2nd line to shoot down any soldier who tired to run away.” Zhukov implemented this order on the Western Front within 10 days, using tanks manned by specially selected officers. They followed the first wave of an attack, ready “to combat cowardice” by opening fire on any soldiers who wavered.
Soviet military discipline verged on being barbaric. Soldiers faced the choice of fighting to the death or facing a firing squad.
"The situation proved even more disastrous for 64th Rifle Division, which was assembling to the rear. Morale collapsed under German air attacks….. The wounded being taken to the rear recounted tales of horror which unnerved the inexperienced troops waiting in reserve to be marched forward. Individuals, then whole groups, began to desert. The divisional commander ordered the most fragile units to form up. He harangued and cursed them for such a cowardly failure to serve the Motherland. He then adopted the Roman punishment of decimation. With pistol drawn, he walked along the front rank counting in a loud voice. He shot every tenth man through the face at point-blank range until his magazine was empty.”
Untitled Slide
The Soviet Union invaded Poland on 17 September,1939, in accordance with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. The Red Army advanced quickly and met little resistance as Polish forces facing them were under orders not to engage the Soviets. About 250,000 to 454,700 Polish soldiers and policemen were captured and interned by the Soviet authorities.
On 5 March 1940, pursuant to a note to Joseph Stalin from Beria, six members of the Soviet Politburo—Stalin, Vyacheslav Molotov, Lazar Kaganovich, Kliment Voroshilov, Anastas Mikoyan, and Mikhail Kalinin—signed an order to execute 25,700 Polish "nationalists and counterrevolutionaries" kept at camps and prisons in occupied western Ukraine and Belarus. About 4400 of them were executed and buried in Katyn.
Those who died at Katyn included an admiral, two generals, 24 colonels, 79 lieutenant colonels, 258 majors, 654 captains, 17 naval captains, 3,420 non-commissioned officers, 7chaplains, 20 university professors, 300 physicians; several hundred lawyers, engineers, and teachers; and more than 100 writers and journalists as well as about 200 pilots. In all, the NKVD executed almost half the Polish officer corps
Detailed information on the executions in the Kalinin NKVD prison was provided during a hearing by Dmitry Tokarev, former head of the Board of the District NKVD in Kalinin. According to Tokarev, the shooting started in the evening and ended at dawn. The first transport, on 4 April 1940, carried 390 people, and the executioners had difficulty killing so many people in one night. The following transports held no more than 250 people. The executions were usually performed with German-made. The executioners used German weapons rather than the standard Soviet revolvers, as the latter were said to offer too much recoil, which made shooting painful after the first dozen executions. Vasily Mikhailovich Blokhin, chief executioner for the NKVD—and quite possibly the most prolific executioner in history—is reported to have personally shot and killed 7,000 of the condemned, some as young as 18, from the Ostashkov camp at Kalinin prison over a period of 28 days in April 1940.
The killings were methodical. After the personal information of the condemned was checked and approved, he was handcuffed and led to a cell insulated with stacks of sandbags along the walls and a heavy, felt-lined door. The victim was told to kneel in the middle of the cell, was then approached from behind by the executioner and immediately shot in the back of the head or neck. The body was carried out through the opposite door and laid in one of the five or six waiting trucks, whereupon the next condemned was taken inside and subjected to the same fate. In addition to muffling by the rough insulation in the execution cell, the pistol gunshots were also masked by the operation of loud machines (perhaps fans) throughout the night. Some post-1991 revelations suggest that prisoners were also executed in the same manner at the NKVD headquarters in Smolensk, though judging by the way that the corpses were stacked, some captives may have been shot while standing on the edge of the mass graves.This procedure went on every night, except for the public May Day holiday.
Photo by stillunusual
Stalin's red terror- purging the Red Army
Between 1937 and 1939, Stalin “purged” the Red Army. It was driven by his paranoia and almost wrecked the Army. The Army chief and some 35,000 other high-ranking officers in the Red Army were removed.
The multiple waves of military purges, which began in 1937 and lasted into the opening months of World War II, liquidated most Red Army theoreticians and senior commanders. Thousands of military personnel were slaughtered by the NKVD.
The senior ranks experienced the most severe losses in terms of percentages (11 of 13 army commanders were shot, as were 57 of the 85 corps commanders and 110 of the 195 division commanders). Estimates of the total losses created by this mass bloodletting range from 15,000 to 30,000 officers, depending upon the dates used and the figures available.
Red Army officers knew that they lived and died at Stalin's whim.
The multiple waves of military purges, which began in 1937 and lasted into the opening months of World War II, liquidated most Red Army theoreticians and senior commanders. Thousands of military personnel were slaughtered by the NKVD.
The senior ranks experienced the most severe losses in terms of percentages (11 of 13 army commanders were shot, as were 57 of the 85 corps commanders and 110 of the 195 division commanders). Estimates of the total losses created by this mass bloodletting range from 15,000 to 30,000 officers, depending upon the dates used and the figures available.
Red Army officers knew that they lived and died at Stalin's whim.
Photo by catatronic
George Marshall*****
Watch this video extract from Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" to get an idea of how General Marshall differed from his Soviet counterparts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvwsdDRyXPw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvwsdDRyXPw
In November 1938, Marshall attended a meeting where Roosevelt did most of the talking. Roosevelt’s position was greeted with universal approbation. Nearing the end, he turned to Marshall and said: “George, don't you think so?” Marshall shot back: “Mr. President, I don't agree with that at all.” With a startled look on his face, Roosevelt abruptly adjourned the meeting. Attendees told Marshall they were sorry his career had so abruptly ended. Marshall later observed: “I remember he called me George… I wasn't very enthusiastic over his misrepresentation of our intimacy… I don't think he ever did it again.” He later told the President in a private meeting, “Mr. President, don't call me George.” Roosevelt, not Marshall, told the story.
Watch this video extract from Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" to get an idea of how General Marshall differed from his Soviet counterparts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvwsdDRyXPw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvwsdDRyXPw
Dwight D Eisenhower *****
The morning after he accepted the Republican nomination for president, Ike startled aides when he emerged from his suite at the Blackstone Hotel -- as he had from his headquarters in England on the eve of D-Day -- but, this time, no driver. He walked up South Michigan Avenue to the Congress Hotel.
"Ike went to the ballroom, where a luncheon was in progress, a reunion of the 82nd Airborne Division. When the men caught sight of him, they were on their feet, cheering, whistling. He moved to the lectern at the head table, beaming -- the famous Eisenhower smile -- as he acknowledged the welcome. I saw it all in my living room when the Chicago TV station I was watching broke into its newscast. The TV camera zoomed in. A tear moved down Ike's cheek. Then another.
My mother, watching with me, said, "He's crying. Why is he crying?"
I said, "He's looking out at a roomful of men he once thought he could be sending to their death.""
"Ike went to the ballroom, where a luncheon was in progress, a reunion of the 82nd Airborne Division. When the men caught sight of him, they were on their feet, cheering, whistling. He moved to the lectern at the head table, beaming -- the famous Eisenhower smile -- as he acknowledged the welcome. I saw it all in my living room when the Chicago TV station I was watching broke into its newscast. The TV camera zoomed in. A tear moved down Ike's cheek. Then another.
My mother, watching with me, said, "He's crying. Why is he crying?"
I said, "He's looking out at a roomful of men he once thought he could be sending to their death.""
Photo by cliff1066™
On June 4, 1944, a fierce wind tore through Britain, and Ike hesitated; then, as it began to clear, he gave his approval, officially issuing the order at 4:15am on June 5. That night Eisenhower visited with soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division. They lustily cheered his arrival. In closer quarters, they shrugged off any hint of nerves or danger. Eishenower stayed with those young men, many destined to die that night, until the final airplane was aloft. As it departed he turned back to his car. He had tears in his eyes.
Photo by DVIDSHUB
Relate to
- Cohen
- Huntingdon
- Clausewitz
- Negotiation theory
Untitled Slide
- High Context/Low Context?
- Value of Contract?
- Individual or Group?
- Time? Bargaining? Face?
- Authoritarian?
Shambaugh
- Pragmatic
- Accommodation
- Underplay differences
- Focus on mutual interest - UNSC, BRICS
Long history of negotiations
- WWII
- Cold War balance
- Creation of United Nations
- Cuban Crisis
- Detente/ Arms Control
Photo by publicstock
How is history taught in Russia?
Photo by archer10 (Dennis)
Negotiation structure
- Diagosing the structure
- Identifying Barriers
- Managing Conflict
- Building momentum
Photo by Dal Lu
