The victorious allies met in Potsdam, Germany in July 1945 to discuss the substance and procedures of the peace settlements in Europe after V-E day. Stalin was the sole remaining leader, as FDR died in April and Churchill lost a long await British general election during the conference. This definitely was an advantage in negotiating for Stalin and the Soviet Union as Truman and Attlee were still settling into their new roles.
Supposed Democratic Future
The proceedings published at the conference conclusion seemingly concluded that the Allied Powers (United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, but not yet France) intended for a peaceful, non-militaristic and democratic Germany (with the inevitable peace agreement, acknowledgement of wrongs, reparations, etc); in fact, the terms democracy and democratic are sprinkled throughout. In fact, the Soviet Union created the communist East Germany from its occupied territory - definitely not democratic by most agreed-upon definitions - and Germany remained split along political and economic ideologies until reunification in 1990.
Despite the victors apparent agreement, something went amiss. But what?
Undefined, Unclear, Imprecise Wording
The simple answer is terminology and definition: I've reviewed the proceeding's final report from two separate sources and, despite difference, neither actually defines democracy or democratic, giving Stalin diplomatic wiggle room. Perhaps Truman and Attlee assumed Stalin agreed the western definition of democracy, perhaps the allies agreed to disagree and kicked the proverbially can down the row, perhaps Stalin nodded his agreement with no intent on following through. Regardless, Stalin's political acumen and experience negotiation took advantage of the newbies and, as written, Stalin is free to interpret in whatever way suits his goals. Which he did, and not just in Germany.
During the Russian Civil War, the western allies were extremely concerned about what communist Russia meant for the leading democracies such that many countries - such as the United States, Britain, France, and Japan - fought alongside the Whites to prevent a Bolshevik victory. Twenty-five years hence, It should be blatantly apparent that the communist worldview is dissimilar to their democratic allies and that each side's interpretation of democracy was woefully misaligned. For the western allies, whomever was responsible for researching and understanding communist ideology and preparing their leaders did not do their homework.
Consider this: the official name of East Germany was the laughable Deutsche Demokratische Republik or German Democratic Republic, which was neither democratic nor a republic.
Western Democracy vs. Social Democracy
Since its Greek introduction during the era of Ancient Greece city-states, democracy is, literally, rule by the people. Unsurprisingly, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia defines democracy with a Marxist-Leninist, anti-capitalist viewpoint:
Democracy in an exploitative society, it is a form of dictatorship of capitalists over the proletariat and other, semi-proletarian and non-proletarian working classes and segments of the population. It is characterized by a clear contradiction between the declared «power of the people» and the actual domination of the exploiters.
Since communism is (purportedly) the dictatorship of the proletariat, therefore democracy is the dictatorship of the capitalists. The entry continues by introducing class to the discussion.
Functions of bourgeois institutions Democracy they consist in ensuring class domination, guaranteeing the privileges of the exploiting class, in disguising its domination, in the self-consolidation of the bourgeois class, and in resolving its intra-class contradictions.
The 1946 article About Democracy by I.P. Trainin - whom I can't find anywhere and may be a pseudonym - lays out the advantages of a Soviet socialist democracy over that of a bourgeoisie democracy with many questionable but unsurprising statements and conclusions, starting with another comparison of dictatorships.
The crucial distinction is that the bourgeois state exercises dictatorship in the interests of the propertied minority, and the socialist state in the interests of the overwhelming majority of the people. Under conditions of socialism, even the concept of people has a different meaning. The term is interpreted to mean people devoid of exploiters, people consisting … of workers, peasants, and the Soviet intelligentsia.
As we learned over time, the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat was, in fact, a dictatorship of the party; theoretically a necessary step until people realized the benefits of and accepted communism; in reality, this never occurred and the desired classless society became classed, the party elite vs. everyone else.
Feature #1
Soviet democracy is a genuine, most consistent democracy. The principle of electing governmental organs from the highest to the lowest levels, the responsibility of the governmental organs to the electorate, the electorate’s right to recall deputies who do not justify its confidence, the principle of accountability of the administrative organs to political authority, and, in general, the principle of a true people’s sovereignty and the identity of the interests of the governing and the governed are most consistently translated into reality in the Soviet state.
Really? Elections with unopposed, party candidates? Non-secret voting with retribution if ballot spoiled or candidate struck out? A rubber-stamp Supreme Soviet? The Central Committee or the Politburo whom made policy without answering to the electorate? That's a true people's sovereignty?
Feature #2
The significance of [instruments of production belonging to the working people] has been demonstrated quite convincingly during the victorious war for the preservation of our fatherland. ts tremendous import and superiority are being demonstrated at the present time in postwar period. In contrast to some great foreign powers, unemployment does not exist in the USSR.
Due to their industrial shortcomings, exacerbated by communist centralized planning. the Soviet Union required extensive supplies and machinery from the western democracies without which they likely would have been deleted. And unemployment did exist, just wasn't acknowledged.
View of the US Constitution
All men were viewed as “equal” and “free”: the worker was free to sell his labor or to starve to death; the entrepreneur was free to buy or not to buy his labor; this was the freedom of bargaining and the freedom of contract. Freedom meant: “steal as much as you can.”
Interesting. The 3800 word article attacks western democracy and capitalism to make communism seem the most logical and best choice for all populations.
Final Thoughts
The Potsdam Conference was the last of the great conferences, after Tehran and Yalta, and all three contributed to Stalin getting his sphere of political influence in eastern Europe. Numerous researchers have pointed out how unprepared western democracies were to aggressively negotiate with Stalin, preferring a friendlier, we're-all-happy-allies approach. Post-war, Truman closed the Office of Strategic Services as he felt it was no longer necessary before re-evaluating and establishing the CIA by executive order in the 1946. The United Kingdom was broke. The Soviet Union aggressively spied.
Though way too simple a statement, poor decisions and actions (or lack thereof) by western democracies during and immediately after the war gave communism a beachhead in Eastern Europe that wasn't relinquished for another 45 years, all for the lack of clear definitions.
