It was long thought that it had been a mistake to make an agreement with Stalin, who was very treacherous and who did not fulfill his obligations, however in the end the Soviet Empire collapsed anyway, and the Yalta agreement became irrelevant. Whether anything would have worked out better if the Yalta agreement had not been signed, would be impossible to know.
The year the Yalta Agreement was 1945.
The year the Yalta Agreement was 1945.
divided Berlin into four zones of occupation.
the solviets had violated the yalta agreement
The exact date of the start is debated upon. However, the common agreement is that i started at the Yalta Conference between US, USSR and the UK. The Yalta conference was in August 1945.
Joseph Stalin
He took over Poland and the Soviet Union STILL didn't enter the war against Japan.
False , West Germany was givien to the Soviet Union.
agreements concerning soviet territorial demands
The Yalta Conference was a meeting between the leaders of the three main allied powers of World War II, Franklin Roosevelt (United States), Winston Churchill (United Kingdom) and Joseph Stalin (Soviet Union). The meeting took place in the Crimean city of Yalta during February 4-11, 1945. The three leaders agreed that after World War II, Germany would be divided into four separate zones, with the United Kingdom, Soviet Union, France and United States all administering a zone.
a post-war military occupation of Germany and the entry of Russia into the war with Japan
A Sin Is Somthing That You Do On A Purpose Issue, A Mistake Is Like: You Fall On Something, Trip, Scratch, (Mistake) That Does Not Matter At All. And In contract law, a mistake is an erroneous belief, at contracting, that certain facts are true. It can be argued as a defence, and if raised successfully can lead to the agreement in question being found void ab initio or voidable, or alternatively an equitable remedy may be provided by the courts. Common law has identified three different types of mistake in contract: the 'unilateral mistake', the 'mutual mistake' and the 'common mistake'. It is important to note the distinction between the 'common mistake' and the 'mutual mistake'.Mistake can be- (1)Mistake of Law (2)Mistake of FactMistake of law: when a party enters into a contract, without the knowledge of the law in the country, the contract is affected by such mistakes but it is not void. A contract is not voidable because it was caused by a mistake as to any law in force in India. The reason here is that ignorance of law is not an excuse at all. However if a party is induced to enter into a contract by the mistake of law then such a contract is not valid. Illustration A and B make a contract grounded on the erroneous belief that a particular debt is barred by the Indian law of Limitation; the contract is not voidable.Mistake of Fact: Where both the parties into an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void. Explanation: An erroneous opinion as to the value of the thing which forms the subject-matter of the agreement is not to be deemed a mistake as to a matter of fact.Illustration: (1) A agrees to buy a certain horse from B. It turns out that the horse was dead at the time of bargain, through neither party was aware of the fact. The agreement is void. (2) A, being entitled to an estate for the life to B, agrees to sell it to C. B was dead at the time of an agreement, but both the parties were ignorant of the fact. The agreement is void.