According to Kausewitz, «war is the continuation of politics by other means», by means of armed struggle. A state’s capacity to implement its war-time policy principles and ends with military ways and means depends on correct definition of a state’s war-time policy. The World War II is replete with illustrations that inadequately, poorly formulated, permeated with reactionary ideology geopolitics had a negative bearing of achievement of specific goals by a state military machine. The author discloses contradictions between policies and strategies of the USSR’s allies in anti-Nazi coalition and anti-Japan coalition in the Pacific war. The author demonstrates how these contradictions impeded war efforts of Western allies and led Japan to military and political downfall in the world war.

The World War II is replete with examples when inadequately stated, permeated with class ideology geopolitics brought to bear negative influence on achievement of its specific goals by means of military strategy. The second part of the article exposes contradictions between policies and strategies of the Western Allies in the anti-Fascist coalition during the Pacific war. The most dramatic manifestation of these contradictions came at the final stage of the WWII when the Western Allies proved to be unable to complete defeat of Japan in short terms and without unacceptable losses. All these conditions could be fulfilled only due to the USSR entry into war. Despite willingness to limit growth of authority and influence of the USSR on the post-war world balance of forces the Western Allies had to ask the USSR to join the war on the Far East due to the immense experience of land operations the USSR acquired in Europe.

The development of atom weaponry undertaken by the USA in secret from the USSR at the final stage of the World War II led the former anti-Nazi allies along the path of mutual hatred and brought them to the Cold War and nuclear arms race that put the world in the historical nuclear stalemate that was fraught with the real danger of annihilation of life all over the Earth.

The middle and the second half of last century of Second Millennium were noted for unprecedented acuteness of comprehensive confrontation of two extremely hostile to each other social systems. This phenomenon, called «cold» war, also has a big impact on people’s fates now, in Third Millennium. Important thing is that it didn’t led to a «hot» war. Nevertheless it has repeatedly drive the ideologically parted society into a border of «hot» war by the impermissibility of using military expenses on the development needs. «Cold» war can be compared with «hot» World Wars I and II by the influence on people’s fates, heavy human casualties and the damage to the environment. The background of such a way of society life since World War II should be founded in quite impartial events, in actual of world war, especially its final stage, and in its conclusions.

The middle and the second half of last century of Second Millennium were noted for unprecedented acuteness of comprehensive confrontation of two extremely hostile to each other social systems. This phenomenon, called «cold» war, also has a big impact on people’s fates now, in Third Millennium. The background of such a way of society life since World War II should be founded in quite impartial events, in actual of world war, especially its final stage, and in its conclusions. Is the international society in ability to change the paradigm of international relations in a way of refusing «hot» and «cold» war thinking?