Yalta still excites scholars and general public alike. In shaping post-war geographical alignments, Yalta has become drenched in ideological disputes. It has assumed a symbolic quality for liberal, left, and conservative interpretations of modern European history. In his book, Pierre de Senarclens offers the reader a clear and precise account of the matter in which negotiations at Yalta were actually conducted by Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. Senarclens not only follows closely the negotiations themselves, but draws upon the political and strategic events preceding the negotiations, and the stated aims of the Allied Forces before the conference.In the light of all the different expectations of the respective leaders, the key question for Senarclens is, what was the real outcome of Yalta? Senarclens avoids overdramatization and does not elevate Yalta to a turning point in world history. He avoid ideological interpretations, from the conservative analysis of Yalta as appeasement and the selling out of Eastern Europe and China, to the liberal-left analysis of three old men ruthlessly dividing the world between themselves. But he does not spare us Roosevelt's idealized picture of Stalin, nor does he avoid revealing the ambiguities of Churchill's conduct, or the ruthlessness of Stalin's approach.Senarclens refutes the thesis that Yalta amounted to an occidental capitulation to the Soviets. As the author convincingly argues, the world has not come about us as a result of Yalta, but in spite of it.

Yalta still excites scholars and general public alike. In shaping post-war geographical alignments, Yalta has become drenched in ideological disputes. It has assumed a symbolic quality for liberal, left, and conservative interpretations of modern European history. In his book, Pierre de Senarclens offers the reader a clear and precise account of the matter in which negotiations at Yalta were actually conducted by Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. Senarclens not only follows closely the negotiations themselves, but draws upon the political and strategic events preceding the negotiations, and the stated aims of the Allied Forces before the conference.In the light of all the different expectations of the respective leaders, the key question for Senarclens is, what was the real outcome of Yalta? Senarclens avoids overdramatization and does not elevate Yalta to a turning point in world history. He avoid ideological interpretations, from the conservative analysis of Yalta as appeasement and the selling out of Eastern Europe and China, to the liberal-left analysis of three old men ruthlessly dividing the world between themselves. But he does not spare us Roosevelt's idealized picture of Stalin, nor does he avoid revealing the ambiguities of Churchill's conduct, or the ruthlessness of Stalin's approach.Senarclens refutes the thesis that Yalta amounted to an occidental capitulation to the Soviets. As the author convincingly argues, the world has not come about us as a result of Yalta, but in spite of it.

Yalta still excites scholars and general public alike. In shaping post-war geographical alignments, Yalta has become drenched in ideological disputes. It has assumed a symbolic quality for liberal, left, and conservative interpretations of modern European history. In his book, Pierre de Senarclens offers the reader a clear and precise account of the matter in which negotiations at Yalta were actually conducted by Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. Senarclens not only follows closely the negotiations themselves, but draws upon the political and strategic events preceding the negotiations, and the stated aims of the Allied Forces before the conference.In the light of all the different expectations of the respective leaders, the key question for Senarclens is, what was the real outcome of Yalta? Senarclens avoids overdramatization and does not elevate Yalta to a turning point in world history. He avoid ideological interpretations, from the conservative analysis of Yalta as appeasement and the selling out of Eastern Europe and China, to the liberal-left analysis of three old men ruthlessly dividing the world between themselves. But he does not spare us Roosevelt's idealized picture of Stalin, nor does he avoid revealing the ambiguities of Churchill's conduct, or the ruthlessness of Stalin's approach.Senarclens refutes the thesis that Yalta amounted to an occidental capitulation to the Soviets. As the author convincingly argues, the world has not come about us as a result of Yalta, but in spite of it.