Military Review

Stalin's three days. Beaverbrook and Harriman's Unclassified Mission

58
Stalin's three days. Beaverbrook and Harriman's Unclassified Mission

Who instead of Harry Hopkins



Almost until the end of 1941, the Soviet Union confronted Nazi Germany with only one ally - Great Britain. At this time, the United States preserved its friendly neutrality, as President Roosevelt promised the Americans when he was elected for a third term, and the people still had to be convinced of the need to fight the Nazis.

However, it was the United States that was the first to send its plenipotentiaries to Moscow, led by F.D. Roosevelt's assistant Harry Hopkins. The rather unexpected success of his trip to the Soviet capital has already been written in the pages of "Military Review" ("USSR and the allies: at the origins of Lend-Lease"), and it was Hopkins who was awaited in the Kremlin for a detailed study of plans for allied assistance to the Soviet Union.

Along with American supplies, British aid had to be negotiated. Therefore, the second delegation, which went to Moscow at the end of September, became Anglo-American. Because of Hopkins' illness, instead of him from Roosevelt to Stalin went 50-year-old millionaire Averell Harriman, a real oligarch, a railroad tycoon who went into politics only under the influence of Roosevelt's New Deal.


Averell Harriman, an oligarch turned successful politician

Unlike Hopkins' visit, which was accompanied by only two aviators, a rather large team flew with Harriman to Moscow: Admiral Standley, two generals, Burns and Chanei, Colonel Faymonville and politician William Batt.

The British delegation, which also included a politician, Deputy Secretary of State for aviation Harold Balfour, two generals, Macready and Ismail, and Sir Rowlands and Wilson, were headed by Lord Beaverbrook, master of a powerful newspaper empire and a close friend of Prime Minister Churchill.

Shortly before the mission to Red Russia, Harriman, the special envoy of the US President, spent a lot of time in London, negotiating the terms of Lend-Lease deliveries to Great Britain. In the English capital, he met with Lord Beaverbrook, who at that time held a very suitable post of Secretary of Supply, and before that headed the British aviation industry.


Lord Beaverbrook, newspaper tycoon, friend of Churchill

Both high-ranking guests of Stalin were listed as aristocrats, although they were not by blood. Averell Harriman comes from a Jewish family of financiers and entrepreneurs, and did not really need titles in the United States. But Lord Beaverbrook was a native of Canada with the modest name of William Maxwell Aitken, and he received his peerage from Prime Minister D. Lloyd George in 1916 for helping to oust the liberal cabinet of G. Asquith.

President Roosevelt supplied Averell Harriman with a personal letter to the Soviet leader - a letter of the same kind as he had transmitted with Hopkins a couple of months earlier.

Dear Mr. Stalin!
This letter will be delivered to you by my friend Averell Harriman, whom I asked to be the head of our delegation to be sent to Moscow.
Mr. Harriman is well aware of the strategic importance of your front, and I am sure he will do everything he can to successfully complete the talks in Moscow.
Harry Hopkins told me in detail about his encouraging and satisfactory meetings with you. I cannot tell you how much we all admire the valiant defensive struggle of the Soviet armies ...

Lord Beaverbrook did not receive any messages from Churchill, neither of them considered it necessary. And this was in the tradition of British diplomacy, especially since Beaverbrook was the first of the major politicians of the empire to visit the USSR after the start of the war on the Eastern Front.

It is characteristic that Harriman and Beaverbrook in those days constantly remained in touch with Harry Hopkins, thereby recognizing his undeniable authority on Lend-Lease matters. And this is despite the fact that the USSR has not yet given the final approval to join the program.

Without omitting details


Before leaving for the Soviet capital (Harriman and Beaverbrook on a British cruiser, and mission staff on B-24 aircraft), lengthy preliminary consultations were held in London. But they were in the first place, not specifics, but politics.

The British tried with all their might to reduce supplies to the USSR to the required minimum, fearing that in the event of the defeat of the Russians, everything, equipment, weapons, and food, would go to the Germans. Moreover, this approach arose clearly under the impression of publications in the press, although who, if not Lord Beaverbrook, knew the price of propaganda better than anyone else.


Arrival in Moscow. From left to right: Head of the British Delegation W. Beaverbrook, Head of the US Delegation A. Harriman, USSR Ambassador to the USA K. A. Umansky, Deputy People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR A. Ya. Vyshinsky. September 28, 1941

On the other hand, negotiations with the Soviet leadership, in fact personally with Stalin, took only three days, although initially the Allies planned two days. On the very first day, September 28, the leader of the Bolshevik Party, who had headed the Soviet government just on the eve of the war, briefly and very specifically acquainted the Allied representatives with the situation at the front.

From Stalin's confessions of the superiority of the Germans in forces, his statements about the need to open a second front in Europe, as well as requests to send British troops to fight in Ukraine, the conclusion literally suggested itself. The Soviet leadership will not agree to negotiations with Hitler, the Red Army will be able to withstand, but for a turning point in the war, it urgently needs help. However, the country as a whole needs it.


At the talks in Moscow. Beaverbrook, Molotov, Harriman

The Soviet leader raised the issue of the goals of peace and even suggested "to make the Germans pay for the damage." After that, Stalin literally bombarded the guests, primarily Lord Beaverbrook, with clear and specific questions about what and how, on what terms, would be supplied to the Soviet Union in the foreseeable future.

The British baron seemed to have been interrogated, although it is clear that Stalin just wanted to know exactly what the Russians could expect in the near future, and these were the equipment and materials that were already on the islands in Britain. From the transcript of the conversation published long ago, it can be seen that Beaverbrook often simply "floated", saying: "I will find out, I will make inquiries, I will answer your question tomorrow."

To Harriman, many of the answers were given somewhat easier: his specifics were closer to the American businessman. But he was once forced to sign ignorance as soon as the Soviet leader started talking about the technical characteristics and weapons of fighters.

Nevertheless, the first half was clearly played by the partners on the whole successfully, Stalin and Beaverbrook even managed to discuss the situation with the landing in Britain of Rudolf Hess, one of Hitler's close associates.


I. Stalin and subsequently shook hands with A. Harriman with pleasure

The technical personnel now had a lot of work to do to clarify the basically agreed arrangement of supplies of equipment and weapons to the USSR, as well as reciprocal supplies of raw materials and materials to the USA and Great Britain. Both heads of the Union delegations were deeply impressed by Stalin and admired the struggle of the Soviet people.

Germans can lie further


The second day of negotiations turned out to be much more difficult, moreover, as in London, due to the fact that politics crowded out real decisions. To begin with, the topic of mutual recognition of the pre-war status quo emerged, which had previously been regularly raised by Soviet diplomats, puzzled by the need to push through the recognition of the reunification of the Baltic countries with Russia.

However, Stalin had enough tact and endurance to propose to postpone the solution of such problems until after the victory. After talking in detail about the armor plate, Willis cars and the fact that the armored cars offered by the Americans are traps and he does not need them, the Soviet leader reminded the negotiators of German propaganda, which tried to split the ranks of the only emerging Union of Three.

Joseph Goebbels, whom one of the American journalists called "the master of a pack of Nazi propagandists", tried to ridicule the very meeting in Moscow. "The British and Americans will never find a common language with the Bolsheviks." The conviction that this thesis works, Goebbels not only carried until 1945, but also forever instilled it in his Fuhrer.

Stalin understood that in this case he could not count on real secrecy, which was familiar to Soviet diplomacy and politics, but he did not hide his irritation. It should be recalled that the Germans began their press campaign against the Moscow meeting even earlier, when they managed not only to intercept, but also to accurately misrepresent Roosevelt's personal message to Stalin.

The one that was broadcast with Averell Harriman. Hitler's agitators did not come up with anything better for North and South America, where the DNB (Deutsche Nachrichten Buro) agency broadcast, how to replace the address to Stalin “Dear Sir” with “My dear friend”, and the end of “Sincerely yours” with “With an expression of heart friendship. "

As a result, the difficult day ended with the fact that it was decided to meet again, prolonging the negotiations, and regarding German propaganda, Stalin, already opening the meeting on the third day, September 30, said that the three of them needed to prove that Goebbels was a liar.

Lend-Lease and nothing else


A memorandum was already prepared for the final meeting with a list of everything the Russians asked for. Lord Beaverbrook promptly indicated those materials and equipment, the need for which the British and Americans were not able to satisfy immediately. After that, the head of the British delegation long and tediously read out a list of what could be supplied even with the excess of Soviet requests.

For all the harsh perception of the allied aid, which Stalin did not even try to hide, here he admitted that he "accepts the list with delight." It is characteristic that the format according to which allied deliveries would be carried out did not bother him at all.

But as such, the Lend-Lease scheme, by all indications, did not inspire the Soviet leader as much as Soviet diplomats and foreign trade did before. All of them saw the American approach as something like a desire to enslave Russia. Stalin's pragmatist was clearly embarrassed by the need to subsequently pay for what was used to achieve a common victory.

At the same time, the USSR simply did not have the funds for direct purchases of weapons and ammunition. In order to translate into reality the willingness that the Americans showed to lend to a new ally for military supplies with practically no restrictions, not only the consent of the Russians was required, but also a legislative decision in the United States itself.

Averell Harriman never tired of repeating, instructing his subordinates: "Give, give and give, not counting on a return, no thoughts of getting anything in return."


President Roosevelt succeeded in adding the USSR to the list of countries that "are fighting in defense of the interests of the United States," despite the fierce resistance of all political opponents. He managed to persuade even American Catholics, who unequivocally considered the Bolsheviks to be the fiend of hell, for which the owner of the White House sent his special envoy to Pope Pius XII.

Roosevelt signed a document stating that the Lend-Lease program extended to the USSR on November 7, 1941. On the anniversary of the October Revolution and the day of the legendary parade on Red Square. Agree, and today it is not a sin to say thank you for such a gift. And the first deliveries to the Soviet Union under Lend-Lease began in October 1941. Then Stalin's subordinates only figured out how to fit into this not entirely clear program.
Author:
Photos used:
pobeda.elar.ru, omgpu.ru, pastvu.ru, oldmos.ru, s019.radical.ru, allians.rusarchives.ru
58 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Far B
    Far B 30 September 2020 06: 46 New
    +3
    "The British and Americans will never find a common language with the Bolsheviks." The conviction that this thesis works, Goebbels not only carried until 1945, but also forever instilled it in his Fuehrer
    So Goebbels was, in general, right, there was no "common" language - as soon as the need for cooperation disappeared, the "allies" returned to intrigues against the USSR.
    1. Alexander Suvorov
      Alexander Suvorov 30 September 2020 07: 02 New
      +4
      About whom and how the United States helped the United States, Truman spoke best of all:
      If we see that Germany is winning the war, we should help Russia, if there is Russia, we should help Germany, and let them kill each other as much as possible, although I do not want under any circumstances to see Hitler in the winners. Not one of them holds the promised word.

      Author, what is this article for? So that we will once again be imbued with the thought that without Lend-Lease we would definitely lose the war?
      When you write such articles, it would not be bad to mention the US assistance to the Third Reich, and why and why the second front was opened, etc. ...
      1. Blacksmith 55
        Blacksmith 55 30 September 2020 08: 02 New
        +2
        And without Lend-Lease, the war would have won, I have no doubt.
        But the war would have lasted longer, and with even greater casualties.
        I think the USSR paid for all the supplies with the blood of its soldiers and people.
        1. Avior
          Avior 30 September 2020 08: 05 New
          0
          We fought for ourselves, and not for an overseas barter uncle.
          hi
        2. Proxima
          Proxima 30 September 2020 11: 56 New
          +1
          Quote: smith 55
          I think the USSR paid for all the supplies with the blood of its soldiers and people.

          Add to the soldier's blood the lend-lease payments that were made by the USSR after the war, and then Russia. Plus there were also direct purchases for gold and raw materials. And also military assistance was carried out under American loans (albeit interest-free), which the USSR paid one hundred percent without any lend-lease reservations. In a word, the allies did not remain in the loser. good
          1. Alexander Suvorov
            Alexander Suvorov 30 September 2020 12: 19 New
            +2
            Proxima (Sergey Obolensky)
            In a word, the allies did not remain in the loser.
            Not only did they not lose. The United States became a great power precisely thanks to the two world wars, not unleashed without their help. Who was the USA before WWI ...?! Nobody can call them. But after WWII it is the number one power in the world. This is despite the fact that the United States did not exert any serious military influence on the course of hostilities in any of the world wars. They fit in at the very last moment, knowing in advance the alignment and skimming all the cream. Amerzos's vileness, jackals ... Even in the war with tiny Japan, they did not rely on their strength to the end and tearfully begged Stalin to fit in.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 30 September 2020 13: 49 New
              +2
              Quote: Alexander Suvorov
              This is despite the fact that the United States did not exert any serious military influence on the course of hostilities in any of the world wars.

              As I understand it, Japan in WWII fought with a shadow - and self-drank from grief?
              And in Africa, Italy, France and further, only the British fought?
              Quote: Alexander Suvorov
              Even in the war with tiny Japan, they did not rely on their strength to the end and tearfully begged Stalin to fit in.

              Tiny Japan at that time it was the second or third fleet in the world. And an army with combat experience, chasing the many times superior forces of the Chinese.
              What about tearfully begged - Why lay the lives of your servicemen if there are allies?
              Nevertheless, the Allies were preparing for the "Olympic" - "Coronet". And if the USSR had not agreed to return half of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, and even climb into China, then the landing would have taken place.
              1. Alexander Suvorov
                Alexander Suvorov 30 September 2020 14: 00 New
                +2
                Alexey RA (Alexey)
                As I understand it, Japan in WWII fought with a shadow - and self-drank from grief?
                Something like that... wassat
                And in Africa, Italy, France and further, only the British fought?
                oh those, the power is all in the mandate ... And what kind of battles were they in Africa, Italy and Storage ?! What did those battles decide? Isn't that where the victory over the Wehrmacht was born? Can you remember the German meat grinder near the Ardennes? Or did El Alamein bring about a real turning point in the war?
                What the hell is it to fence? Just out of harm or on special order? It seems like a smart person, but you are talking about such nonsense ...
                Tiny Japan at that time was the second or third fleet in the world. And an army with combat experience, chasing the many times superior forces of the Chinese.
                Did China have at least some combat experience? Only the lazy didn't beat the Chinese. So it's not an indicator at all.
                And what about tearfully begged - why lay down the lives of their soldiers, if there are allies?
                Of course, very "noble", why bother tearing, let others try ...

                What was your opus for? What did the local "Generalisimus" want to say?
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 30 September 2020 16: 26 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Alexander Suvorov
                  oh those, the power is all in the mandate ... And what kind of battles were they in Africa, Italy and Storage ?! What did those battles decide?

                  Do you want to get Rommel against the USSR as well? Or Kesselring? Or again Rommel, but with forces in real life standing in France? Do you want 6 TA SS near Budapest? Or 350 Tunisian groupings near Kursk?
                  No, I, of course, suspected that the jingoistic patriots do not like their country - but not so much.
                  Quote: Alexander Suvorov
                  And remember about the German meat grinder near the Ardennes?

                  This is when von Rundstedt, a week after the start of the offensive, began to tearfully ask the dear Fuhrer to cancel everything and retreat until it became bad? wink
                  Quote: Alexander Suvorov
                  Did China have at least some combat experience? Only the lazy didn't beat the Chinese. So it's not an indicator at all.

                  Is the Allies knocked out a few months before India and Australia is an indicator? Surrendered Singapore, escaped MacArthur ...
                  Quote: Alexander Suvorov
                  Of course, very "noble", why bother tearing, let others try ...

                  Well, we also demanded the opening of the Second Front in Europe in the same way, no matter what.
                  Quote: Alexander Suvorov
                  What was your opus for? What did the local "Generalisimus" want to say?

                  When the hurray-patriot runs out of arguments, his true face comes out. smile

                  The United States has endured the entire war in the Pacific. The one in which, fortunately, we did not have to participate almost until the very end. And the scale of which we, who are accustomed to judging the scale of battles by human casualties, simply do not understand (it is difficult for the ground forces to understand that the LK or AV stands like a tank army and takes 4-5 years to build and train a team). In parallel with this, the United States participated in the war in the Atlantic, in Europe (first in the air, and then on the ground) and supplied military and non-military goods to Britain, the USSR, France and China.

                  I know the loss argument is about to follow. And let me remind you that Slashchev wrote about the losses:
                  This original, not to say - criminal, view of the large losses of units as a proof of their prowess is deeply rooted in our old army. This view must be fought, and permanent (I emphasize that it is not accidental, which is always possible, especially with modern technology) large losses should indicate the inability of the commander to lead troops, i.e. about his unsuitability for the post.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 30 September 2020 13: 25 New
            +4
            Quote: Proxima
            Add to the soldier's blood the lend-lease payments that were made by the USSR after the war, and then Russia.

            722 million dollars - with a total cost of LL 11 billion. Moreover, payments were made in dollars of the 90s, which were 15 times cheaper than dollars in the 40s.
            It's like paying off a debt of the 40s with today's rubles. smile
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 30 September 2020 09: 38 New
        +2
        Quote: Alexander Suvorov
        About whom and how the United States helped the United States, Truman spoke best of all:
        If we see that Germany is winning the war, we should help Russia, if there is Russia, we should help Germany, and let them kill each other as much as possible, although I do not want under any circumstances to see Hitler in the winners. Not one of them holds the promised word.


        Well, then it would be useful to recall the pre-war position of the USSR.
        A war is going on between two groups of capitalist countries (poor and rich in terms of colonies, raw materials, etc.) for the redivision of the world, for domination over the world! We are not averse to them having a good fight and weakening each other. It would not be bad if the position of the richest capitalist countries (especially England) was shaken by the hands of Germany. Hitler, himself not realizing this and not wanting to, upsets, undermines the capitalist system ... We can maneuver, push one side against the other in order to get torn apart better. The non-aggression pact helps Germany to some extent. The next point is to nudge the other side.
      3. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 30 September 2020 16: 50 New
        +2
        Quote: Alexander Suvorov
        When you write such articles, it would not be bad to mention the US assistance to the Third Reich, and why and why the second front was opened, etc. ...

        Why would I pile up such a heap with these "etc."? The article is devoted to one event - the Moscow conference - everything. What, in each thematic article the thought about the second front and the two-faced imperialists should be spread in order to please you?
        But not to write that the main work was done by six specialized commissions - this is a minus.
      4. Looking for
        Looking for 1 October 2020 15: 20 New
        +1
        And when was it opened ?!
  2. Avior
    Avior 30 September 2020 07: 19 New
    +3
    ... Stalin's pragmatist was clearly embarrassed by the need to subsequently pay for what was used to achieve a common victory.

    How could this embarrass Stalin if it was not provided for by the lend-lease?
    The author has inserted something wrong.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 30 September 2020 10: 30 New
      +3
      The author has inserted something wrong.
      "Not that" is the whole article, built on distortion and distortion.
    2. podymych
      1 October 2020 09: 56 New
      -1
      Avior (Sergey)
      [/ Quote]
      How could this embarrass Stalin if it was not provided for by the lend-lease?
      The author inserted something wrong. [/ Quote]

      Even according to the recollections of contemporaries, it was embarrassing, that's for sure. And how not to embarrass if the scheme was something like a rental, that is, with the obligation to return after the war, albeit not immediately, almost everything that remains, and then pay for another ten years.
      1. Avior
        Avior 1 October 2020 10: 00 New
        -2
        and then pay for another ten years.

        there was no such thing in the lend-lease requirements.
        you didn't have to pay a dime for it
        this was the transfer for temporary use, with the write-off of what was lost or used during the war
  3. Olgovich
    Olgovich 30 September 2020 07: 24 New
    0
    Oh pretty unexpected the success of his trip to the Soviet capital on the pages of "Military Review" has already been written ("USSR and the Allies: at the origins of Lend-Lease")

    Why "unexpected"? Interests coincided and success, accordingly, was natural.

    From Stalin requests to send British troops fight in Ukraine
    It's the same as pressed ...

    For all rigidity perception of allied aid, which Stalin even did not try to hide, then he admitted that he "takes the list with delight"

    And how was the "hardness of perception" expressed and why on earth was it? Delight is understandable: it was a real salvation.
    Stalin's pragmatist was clearly embarrassed by the need to subsequently pay for what was used to achieve common victory.
    For a common victory, they supplied and their troops are also troops of the USSR.

    Moreover, on extremely favorable terms - assistance without prepayment, payment only for the surviving remnants and someday, but for tens of thousands of dead weapons, not a penny.

    Averell Harriman never tired of repeating, instructing his subordinates: “Give, give and give, not counting on a refund, no thoughts of getting anything in return. "

    A real businessman: in the end, it turned out to be more profitable.
    President Roosevelt succeeded in adding the USSR to the list of countries that "are fighting in defense of the interests of the United States," despite the fierce resistance of all political opponents. He managed to persuade even American Catholics, who unequivocally considered the Bolsheviks to be the fiend of hell, for which the owner of the White House sent his special envoy to Pope Pius XII.

    It is a pity that only a huge misfortune unites people and states ...
  4. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 30 September 2020 08: 25 New
    -1
    and that the armored cars proposed by the Americans are traps, and he does not need them

    to be honest, I saw only Manchester and Reid about "armored cars - death traps", and even then - this already referred to 1943.
  5. Undecim
    Undecim 30 September 2020 09: 12 New
    +5
    However, it was the United States that was the first to send its plenipotentiaries to Moscow, led by F.D. Roosevelt's assistant Harry Hopkins.
    Again the author openly misrepresents the course of events.
    A British military mission led by Lieutenant General Frank Mason-McFarlan and an economic mission led by Lawrence Cadbury arrived in Moscow on June 27, 1941.
    Hopkins first arrived in Moscow on July 30, 1941.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 30 September 2020 09: 40 New
      +6
      Along with American supplies, British aid had to be negotiated.
      Again, the author is wrong.
      British aid was negotiated back in August 1941, when the Agreement between the governments of the USSR and Great Britain on joint actions in the war against Germany and the Agreement between the State Bank of the USSR and the Bank of England were signed, and the first Moscow conference began on September 29, 1941.
    2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 30 September 2020 09: 42 New
      +1
      Quote: Undecim
      A British military mission led by Lieutenant General Frank Mason-McFarlan and an economic mission led by Lawrence Cadbury arrived in Moscow on June 27, 1941.

      You forgot to mention Cripps) But it was Stalin who received him on July 10, and it was Cripps who signed the Joint Action Agreement with Molotov. But the most important and painful was the signing of a loan agreement with Britain (12 August)
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 30 September 2020 09: 52 New
        +3
        Did you forget to mention Cripps
        Yes, he led the negotiations. Apparently - it was Cripps who put a minus, for being forgotten.
  6. Unknown
    Unknown 30 September 2020 09: 37 New
    +4
    The British tried with all their might to reduce supplies to the USSR to the required minimum, fearing that in the event of the defeat of the Russians, everything, equipment, weapons, and food, would go to the Germans ... write such boring nonsense. in Dunkirk, in the Balkans, they threw so much equipment, weapons and foodstuffs that they cannot be compared with what they supplied.
    and everything turned out to be with the Germans, and served them on the eastern front. not the desire of the British is simply explained, to prevent the USSR from winning the war. hence the delays with northern convoys, and the hassle of sending planes to Murmansk, and other intrigues, which is the story of the pq-17. he will only refuse help during the war, but as they say, "It's a spoonful to dinner," in the most difficult time for us, the convoys were suspended. but Comrade STALIN has always rebuked the British ....... MESSAGE FROM PREMIER STALIN TO PRIME CHURCHILL

    I received your message dated July 18th.

    From the message it is clear that, firstly, the British Government refuses to continue supplying the Soviet Union with military materials along the northern route and, secondly, despite the well-known agreed Anglo-Soviet communique 22 on the adoption of urgent measures to organize a second front in 1942, the Government Great Britain postpones this case until 1943.

    Our naval specialists consider the arguments of the British naval specialists about the need to stop the supply of military materials to the northern ports of the USSR untenable. They are convinced that with good will and willingness to fulfill their obligations, the supply could be carried out regularly with heavy losses for the Germans. The order of the British Admiralty for the 17th convoy to leave the transports and return to England, and the transport ships to crumble and get alone to the Soviet ports without an escort, our experts consider incomprehensible and inexplicable. Of course, I don't think that regular deliveries to northern Soviet ports are possible without risk and loss. But in a war situation, no big business can be accomplished without risk and loss. You, of course, know that the Soviet Union is suffering incomparably more serious losses. In any case, I could never have imagined that the British Government would refuse to supply us with war materials just now, when the Soviet Union especially needs the supply of war materials at a time of serious tension on the Soviet-German front. It is clear that the supply through Persian ports will in no way recoup the loss that will occur if the supply is refused by the northern route.

    As for the second question, namely, the question of organizing a second front in Europe, I am afraid that this issue is starting to take on a frivolous character. Based on the current situation on the Soviet-German front, I must categorically declare that the Soviet Government cannot reconcile with the postponement of the organization of a second front in Europe for 1943.

    I hope that you will not be offended that I found it necessary to openly and honestly express my opinion and the opinion of my colleagues on the issues raised in your message.

    I. STALIN
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 30 September 2020 09: 49 New
      +4
      The British tried with all their might to reduce supplies to the USSR to the required minimum, fearing that in the event of the defeat of the Russians, everything, equipment, weapons, and food, would go to the Germans.
      Where did this delirium come from?
      1. Pane Kohanku
        Pane Kohanku 30 September 2020 10: 21 New
        +5
        And here is Lord Beaverbrook

        Viktor Nikolaevich, and this, in an hour, is not the same Beaverbrook, after whom the “fake armored beaver” was named, that we discussed just now? I mean, a subcompact ersatz armored car "Biverett"? drinks
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 30 September 2020 10: 40 New
          +4
          The Standard Car 4x2 was indeed produced on the initiative of Beaverbrook, who was then the Minister of Aircraft Industry. Beaverette is an unofficial name.
          As for Lord Beaverbrook, "that one" does not suit him, at one time he was one of the most influential politicians of the world level, a man who achieved everything by his own abilities.
          "The same one" is about the author of the article, you can say who lies through a line.
          1. Pane Kohanku
            Pane Kohanku 30 September 2020 10: 44 New
            +2
            then "the same" does not suit him

            Oh, sorry, I described myself. laughing
            "The same one" is about the author of the article, you can say who lies through a line.

            - I'm bored, Bes!
            - What to do, Faust? ....
            request

            What to do... wink "Be patient, Barclay, be patient ..." drinks
      2. Unknown
        Unknown 30 September 2020 10: 49 New
        +1
        Quote: Undecim
        The British tried with all their might to reduce supplies to the USSR to the required minimum, fearing that in the event of the defeat of the Russians, everything, equipment, weapons, and food, would go to the Germans.
        Where did this delirium come from?
        I wrote it off from this article.
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 30 September 2020 11: 15 New
          +5
          In vain, the author has sucked this sentence out of his finger, moreover, he does not even say from whose.
          There is no doubt that the Soviet Union and the Western powers faced qualitatively different tasks and that Britain and the United States in their assistance to the USSR proceeded solely from their own interests. And this is not hiding in Britain or the United States. But in any case, the presentation of historical events should not be accompanied by distortion and distortion.
          1. Unknown
            Unknown 30 September 2020 11: 33 New
            +2
            the same thing I say. well, this maxim, I heard earlier, in perestroika times, and if I am not mistaken from the pages,
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 30 September 2020 14: 03 New
      +2
      Quote: Unknown
      not the desire of the British is simply explained, to prevent the USSR from winning the war. hence the delays with northern convoys, and the hassle of sending planes to Murmansk, and other intrigues, which is the story of the pq-17.

      Was Winnie's blue dream a war with Germany "from the English Channel to the Urals", which is not experiencing problems with resources? wink
      In addition, the northern route was not the only one in the middle of 1942.
      Quote: Unknown
      As for the second question, namely, the question of organizing a second front in Europe, I am afraid that this issue is starting to take on a frivolous character. Based on the current situation on the Soviet-German front, I must categorically declare that the Soviet Government cannot reconcile with the postponement of the organization of a second front in Europe for 1943.

      It would be interesting to find out how to organize successful strategic landings without sufficient forces and landing craft.
      1. Unknown
        Unknown 30 September 2020 18: 20 New
        +1
        Winnie's blue dream was that when the USSR and the Third Reich exhausted themselves in battles, and they did not have enough strength, to act as an arbiter, as Britain did for two centuries. the British could always reach an agreement with the Germans, with or without Hitler, it did not matter. the connections did not go anywhere, and they kept the Hess at home, and the ruling dynasty, if anyone has forgotten, was Hanoverian. you have not read STALIN carefully, he says why the northern route is preferable. no need to act as a lawyer for the British, when the torch operation was carried out, sufficient forces and means were found.
  7. BAI
    BAI 30 September 2020 10: 02 New
    +3
    as well as requests to send British troops to fight in Ukraine

    The author is noticeably distorting here.
    On September 03, 1941, Stalin sent a letter to Churchill:
    He said that the heavy territorial, raw materials and industrial losses of recent weeks have put the Soviet Union "in a mortal threat." And he immediately informed his British colleague that there was only one way out of this "more than unfavorable situation": powerful aid to the Soviet Union. If it does not exist, two outcomes are possible: the defeat of the USSR or the transition of the Red Army to passive defense (of the territory that has not yet been "under the German"), and this is for a long time!

    The help needed should be two-pronged.

    First, the second front was in 1941. In the Balkans or in France, and of such a scale that it pulled as many as 30-40 German divisions from the eastern front.
    Secondly, military supplies. Here Stalin was very specific: "30 thousand tons of aluminum by the beginning of October" and at least "400 aircraft and 500 tanks (small and medium)" monthly.

    On September 06, 1941 Churchill replied:
    "As soon as the German-Italian forces are destroyed in Libya," the opposing British troops, "will be able to join the front on your southern flank".

    The proposal to send British troops to the USSR came from the British!
    And, of course, the British were worried about covering the way to India through the Caucasus, not the interests of the USSR.
    1. BAI
      BAI 30 September 2020 10: 18 New
      +3
      Literally Stalin's letter:
      “The question is pertinent here: how to get out of this more than unfavorable situation? I think that there is only one way out of this situation: to create a second front this year somewhere in the Balkans or in France, which could pull back 30-40 German divisions from the eastern front, and at the same time provide the Soviet Union with 30 thousand tons of aluminum to early October this year and monthly minimum assistance of 400 aircraft and 500 tanks (small or medium). Without these two types of assistance, the Soviet Union will either be defeated or weakened to the point that it loses for a long time the ability to provide assistance to its allies by its active actions on the front of the struggle against Hitlerism. I understand that Your Excellency will be saddened by this message. But what to do? Experience taught me to face reality, no matter how unpleasant, and not be afraid to speak the truth, no matter how undesirable. "

      Why
      Without these two types of assistance, the Soviet Union will either be defeated or weakened to the point that it loses for a long time the ability to provide assistance to its allies by its active actions on the front of the fight against Hitlerism.
      ?

      But because:
      July 08, 1941, Churchill:
      We will do our best to help you as time, geographic conditions and our growing resources allow. The longer the war goes on, the more help we can provide»

      The supply depended on the USSR's ability to provide lasting resistance. Therefore, Stalin wrote about the defeat without supplies, so as not to delay with them.
      Therefore, the Southwestern Front was ruined, too. for this persuasiveness they promised to hold Kiev until November 01.
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 30 September 2020 11: 44 New
        +2
        Therefore, the Southwestern Front was ruined, too. for this persuasiveness they promised to hold Kiev until November 01.

        Only because of this? And there were no other reasons?
    2. Undecim
      Undecim 30 September 2020 10: 28 New
      +3
      The author is noticeably distorting here.
      The author does not juggle noticeably and lies shamelessly.
      1. Astra wild
        Astra wild 30 September 2020 17: 19 New
        +1
        Apparently, the author was not told at school that lying is not beautiful?
    3. hohol95
      hohol95 30 September 2020 11: 42 New
      +2
      "400 aircraft and 500 tanks (small and medium)" monthly.

      Oh, Joseph Vissarionovich did not know the ability of the Aglitsk tank building.
      It supplied its own army with great strain.
      And then the Russians are asking ...
      Thank you in Dominion, Canada, the production of Valentines got started!
      1. Pane Kohanku
        Pane Kohanku 30 September 2020 13: 25 New
        0
        Thank you in Dominion, Canada, the production of Valentines got started!

        Alexey, the coolest tank building was established in New Zealand - the tank of Bob Sample. wassat IN. Shpakovsky associates wrote about this at one time:
        http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/sempl/
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 30 September 2020 16: 53 New
          -1
          yes, let's chuckle again at this trough.
          1. Pane Kohanku
            Pane Kohanku 30 September 2020 17: 15 New
            +2
            yes, let's chuckle again at this trough.

            Why not? wink There were other little-known pieces of equipment, albeit quite successful - the Australian "Sentinel", the Canadian "Rem". They even made Kangaroo armored personnel carriers from "Rem" - it is interesting that these samples even fought in Europe!

            https://coollib.com/b/344916/read
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 30 September 2020 23: 29 New
              +2
              The Dominions had to take such measures due to the inability of the metropolis to provide them with British-made tanks!
              A similar situation was with combat aircraft. The British sorely lacked aviation even for battles in the skies of Foggy Albion! It was not for nothing that they took the "Airacobra" practically "without looking"!
              They even “grabbed” themselves Hawk.75 not received by the French !!!
              But France managed to receive only a little more than half of the ordered N.75. Where did the rest go? The British Air Force took over 200 vehicles after the defeat of France. They got not only A-4, shipped directly from the United States, but also a number of A-1, A-2 and A-3, on which French pilots flew to England. A total of 227 machines were counted, named in the Royal Air Force "Mohawk". Each modification according to the English system received its own designation: "A-1" turned into "Mohawk" I and so on to "Mohawk" IV.
              Most of the "A-4" came from America, already modified according to British standards: with other devices, radio stations, sights, a "normal" gas sector and armament from six 7,7-mm machine guns.
              These aircraft were first mothballed in case of a German invasion of the island, but from 1941 they began to be shipped to South Africa. The South African Air Force did not fight with these fighters, all their Mohawks remained in the rear. The British sold a dozen cars to Portugal. And since December 1941, Curtis began to arm units on the Indian-Burmese border that fought the Japanese. There they fought until the end of 1944. Finally, they were mainly used as fighter-bombers and attack aircraft. During the battles at Imphal, they also worked as dive bombers, hitting Japanese positions in the jungle with small bombs. These were the last combat operations of the Hawks.

              This is how it "dripped" over the British.
              Hapali everything that was of even the slightest military value!
              1. Pane Kohanku
                Pane Kohanku 1 October 2020 11: 11 New
                +1
                They even “grabbed” themselves Hawk.75 not received by the French !!!

                Before the war in the Pacific theater, the British, too, as far as I understand, had a kind of "pine gathering". Mozheiko writes that they had American Buffalo fighters in Malaya. In any case, these aircraft were in service with the RAF. It is noteworthy that initially this fighter was carrier-based, but "fought" not from aircraft carriers drinks
              2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 1 October 2020 15: 53 New
                -1
                Quote: hohol95
                This is how it "dripped" over the British.
                Hapali everything that was of even the slightest military value!

                over us, too, "dripped". In relation to the USSR and Lend-Lease, also use the phrase "grabbed everything"? Or "seized selectively"?
                Quote: hohol95
                The Dominions had to take similar measures

                what measures are we talking about?
                1. hohol95
                  hohol95 2 October 2020 08: 41 New
                  0
                  Or "seized selectively"?

                  We tried to be selective. Our specialists did not "fall for" the British cruising tanks.
                  And they tried to request the equipment that successfully "fit" into the combat and technical capabilities of the Red Army.
                  The only thing with American tanks in the beginning could not be so. Due to the lack of other models in the United States itself. Only M3 Stewart and M3 Lee. If you don't like it, don't take it. Both the British and we took it. The United States simply did not have any other tanks. There was a larger assortment in aviation! But not all machines already fit the reality of battles in the skies of the USSR.
                  what measures are we talking about?

                  Production of tanks of our own design and at our own enterprises.
                  In Canada and Australia.
                  And let's not forget the Aussie submachine gun designed by Evelyn Owen.
                  The metropolis could not provide its dominion with small arms in the required quantities!
                  Until 1945, about 45 thousand submachine guns of this system were produced in various modifications (Mark 1-42, Mark 1-43, Mark 2).
                  At the same time, the British themselves, after the evacuation from France in 1940, armed the airfield personnel with PIKES from steel corners.
                  1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 October 2020 09: 35 New
                    0
                    Quote: hohol95
                    Production of tanks of our own design and at our own enterprises.
                    In Canada and Australia.

                    The Australians fought on imports. We started with the Stewarts and then Matilda, etc. With "their" tank, they did not really succeed, which, in general, is not surprising. Although, of course, the plans were hoo - as many as 2 thousand "Australian cruising". The expected zilch with six dozen came out, but proven Matilda fought in New Guinea)
                    The Canadians blinded, of course, "their" funny little animal from M3, but it is a stretch to call it "their own development". And in Normandy, as far as I know, the Canadian TDs preferred to land, having in their composition not "rams", but "Shermans". Well, there is nothing to say about "grizzly" - "Sherman", even if you pour over it with maple syrup, it is still "Sherman".

                    Quote: hohol95

                    We tried to be selective.

                    When you lost 72% of BTT, you are not particularly picky. They took what the partners could give.
                    1. hohol95
                      hohol95 2 October 2020 13: 55 New
                      0
                      When you lost 72% of BTT, you are not particularly picky. They took what the partners could give.

                      With regard to the Americans, your thesis is 100% true. But from the British, only infantry tanks were selected. Cruiser tanks, if requested, were only for information.
                      The only "light cruiser" delivered to the USSR was the Tetrarch. And in the form of used cars. 20 units from the 9th Ulan regiment arrived in Sumgait. They naturally did not play a role.
                      And the main tank requested from the British was Valentine.
                      The Australians fought on imports. We started with the Stewarts and then Matilda, etc.

                      Lucky for the Australians. But they were preparing for the worst-case scenario.
                      So we created our Sentinel. With their capabilities in terms of the production of such equipment, it turned out very well!
                      The lack of anti-tank artillery comparable to the German one also helped. And their tanks were much weaker both in terms of armor and in terms of weapons.
                      Therefore, and "Matilda" were used until the end of the war. The Japanese simply had nothing to oppose them! But at the front in North Africa, "Matilda" lost its combat significance by 1942.
                      In the USSR, about 80 Matildas were used at the end of 1943.
      2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 30 September 2020 17: 09 New
        +2
        Quote: hohol95
        Oh, Joseph Vissarionovich did not know the ability of the Aglitsk tank building.

        actually, judging by the Secret Protocol to the Moscow Conference, the USSR asked for 1100 tanks per month. They agreed on five hundred.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 30 September 2020 22: 54 New
          +1
          How then to interpret this information -
          On June 30, 1941, the first Soviet application for the prompt delivery of 3000 bombers, the same number of fighters, 20 anti-aircraft guns, 50 tons of toluene, and equipment for military enterprises, totaling $ 1837 million, went to the table of the US Secretary of State! The main part of this amount was supposed to be paid against the future 5-year soft loan, the rest - through barter.

          Who in the USSR could write such numbers?
          And shouldn't even approximate data on the capabilities of the American military industry be used in their writing?
          But most likely there was no such data in the USSR at all!
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 1 October 2020 11: 11 New
            +1
            Quote: hohol95
            Who in the USSR could write such numbers?
            And shouldn't even approximate data on the capabilities of the American military industry be used in their writing?

            Yes, everything is fine - this is a typical practice: to demand more in order to give at least something. In the USSR, this is how the plans of the first five-year plans were drawn up: at first, unrealistic figures were hammered, and then, when the factories tore their veins, but could not reach the specified indicators, the planned figures were adjusted to the real production volumes of the factories.
  8. Undecim
    Undecim 30 September 2020 10: 27 New
    +5
    President Roosevelt supplied Averell Harriman with a personal letter to the Soviet leader - a letter of the same kind as he had transmitted with Hopkins a couple of months earlier.
    Lord Beaverbrook did not receive any messages from Churchill, they both did not consider it necessary. And it was in the tradition of English diplomacy

    Again, the author lies recklessly and distorts.
    First, Lord Beaverbrook brought a personal message to Stalin. Its text can be found in the two-volume Correspondence of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR with the US Presidents and Prime Ministers of Great Britain during the Great Patriotic War, published back in 1957.
    But Harriman just did not bring a personal message. It was delayed due to bad weather and Harriman did not manage to receive it before his departure from London to Moscow and was burned. Harriman had to ask Roosevelt from Moscow to send a second personal message.
    \
    1. Astra wild
      Astra wild 30 September 2020 17: 13 New
      +1
      A personal message to Stalin, but how did Goebbels receive it?
  9. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 30 September 2020 11: 44 New
    0
    Surprised that Pius XII played on the Roosevelt field, he had, to put it mildly, an ambiguous attitude towards the Bolsheviks and the Nazis.
    1. Astra wild
      Astra wild 30 September 2020 17: 31 New
      +1
      Roosevelt probably found compelling arguments
  10. Astra wild
    Astra wild 30 September 2020 17: 09 New
    +2
    Quote: smith 55
    And without Lend-Lease, the war would have won, I have no doubt.
    But the war would have lasted longer, and with even greater casualties.
    I think the USSR paid for all the supplies with the blood of its soldiers and people.

    Agree with you
  11. Tests
    Tests 30 September 2020 19: 53 New
    +2
    On September 27, 1941, the heavy cruiser London along the stormy White Sea to the mouth of the Northern Dvina, in addition to Lord W. Beaverbrook, delivered the personal representatives of President F. Roosevelt A. Harriman and G. Sturdy. On the vessel "Migalka" mobilized for the pilotage service, the pilots G.N. Bibikov and B.P. Wasteland. The draft of "London" of 6,3 m was equal to the shallowest depth of the fairway. After a meeting with the pilots, the captain of the "London" persuaded the diplomats to sail to the Soviet destroyer. In the cruiser wardroom, they borrowed an armchair, which was swayed. Beaverbrook was the first to sit in the chair, the winch started working, the lord hovered for a few seconds over the destroyer deck dancing on the waves, and the chair sank softly onto the Soviet ship ... The crossing of especially valuable passengers was successful. The destroyer brought the guests of the USSR to the airfield at Kegostrov, from where they flew to Moscow. Pilots Bibikov and Pustoshny without incident brought the "London" into one of the arms of the Northern Dvina - Maymaks. The very next day "London" went to sea, escorting the convoy QP-1 ... In 1942, the cruiser accompanied the convoys PQ-15, 17, 18 ...
    To all those who write that the USSR paid for the lend-lease with "gold, silver and platinum back in the war," please do not forget that servicing ships and ships of the allies in the ports and port points of the USSR (including pilotage) is part of amounts of reverse lend-lease ...
    On May 9 or September 3, raising a glass of vodka, remember the pilots of the USSR, everyone: those who worked in the Arctic, and those who are in the Far East, who are in the Baltic, and on our warm seas - Azov, Black, Caspian, who are on the Volga , on Onega and Ladoga. We do not often remember their works, but they are worthy of our memory ...
  12. Tests
    Tests 2 October 2020 22: 24 New
    0
    hohol95 (Alexey), dear, I have to correct you a little. Part of the "Tetrarchs" that the British delivered to us in January 1942 were manufactured in 1940 and served in the 10th regiment of the royal hussars of the 1st armored division. Some of the tanks were made in the 3rd quarter of 1941, including the one that was sent to the test site in Kubinka. He is the only one (out of 20 delivered to the USSR) that did not fight from January 26 to autumn 1943 in the Caucasus and until recently was in the tank museum in Kubinka, and later in the Patriot park.