The Historical Journal, 30, 2 (1987), pp. 415-436 Printed in Great Britain WINSTON CHURCHILL AND THE SOVIET UNION DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR MARTIN KITCHEN Simon Fraser University When thinking of Churchill's attitude towards the Soviet Union one automatically thinks of him as the most outspoken of the advocates of armed intervention during the civil war, or as the author of the speech in Fulton, Missouri, which many people regard as the opening salvo in the Cold War. During the war, however, when the Soviet Union became a great ally without whose help the war in Europe could never have been won, his attitude was bound to be quite different. Even before the Germans launched 'Operation Barbarossa' thus forcing the Soviets into the Allied camp, Churchill had been thinking of the Russians as possible partners in the struggle against Nazi Germany, for however much he detested the Soviet regime, his passionate determination to destroy Nazism was a far more powerful emotion, and, as he put it, if Hitler were to invade Hell he would promptly sign a pact with the Devil. The British cabinet was not particularly alarmed when the Soviet Union invaded Poland five days after their German allies, and were relieved when they were told by the foreign office that the Anglo-Polish Agreement of August 1939 did not oblige the government to take any action against the Russians. Churchill went much further than this. In a memorandum for his cabinet colleagues he welcomed the Soviet invasion of Poland, making the over-optimistic suggestion that the Germans would have to leave some 25 divisions in Poland to keep an eye on such an untrustworthy ally and he also felt that the Russians might attempt to build up a Balkan bloc to protect the Black Sea against a potential threat from Germany. 1 On 1 October 1939 Churchill gave a talk on the B.B.C. in which he described Russia in a famous phrase as 'a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma' and although he spoke of Russia's 'cold policy of self-interest' he also stressed the 'community of interests' between Britain, France and the Soviet Union which could clearly be seen through the 'fog of confusion and uncertainty'. 2 In a conversation with the Soviet ambassador, Maisky, Churchill confidendy predicted that their two countries would soon be fighting together against Hider. 3 No other prominent politician was prepared to make such a wild forecast, and it would seem to 1 Martin Gilbert, Finest hour. Winston S. Churchill 1939-1941 (London, 1983), p. 44. * Ibid. p. 50. 3 Ivan Maisky, Memoirs of a Soviet ambassador (London, 1967), p. 32. 415 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506 416 MARTIN KITCHEN have been made more on the basis of wishful thinking than on a careful analysis of Nazi policy. Churchill's hopes for a conflict between the Soviet Union and Germany were further encouraged when the Russians began to threaten Finland. On 16 October his cabinet colleagues were amazed when he said: 'No doubt it appeared reasonable to the Soviet Union to take advantage of the present situation to regain some of the territory which Russia had lost as a result of the last war, at the beginning of which she had been the ally of France and Great Britain. This applied not only to the Baltic territories but also to Finland. It was to our interests that the U.S.S.R. should increase their strength in the Baltic, thereby limiting the risk of German domination in that area. For this reason it would be a mistake for us to stiffen the Finns against making concessions to the U.S.S.R.' The foreign secretary, Lord Halifax, was so appalled by this outburst that he felt obliged to remind the first lord of the admiralty that Finland had a perfect right to national independence.4 The Soviet Union attacked Finland on 30 November. In Britain popular enthusiasm for the Finns was immediate and widespread. Their heroic defence of their country against an unprovoked attack had such an effect on public opinion that the government was forced against its better judgement to consider sending aid to Finland, even though their military advisers agreed that the country would be defeated by May when the Finns would no longer be able to benefit from the winter conditions. Churchill was carried along by these popular emotions and agreed to release some Fleet Air Arm aircraft for use by the Finns and he also strongly supported the suggestion that the United States should be asked to send credits and planes to Finland.5 But his concern was not so much to help Finland as to provide cover for his pet scheme for an attack on Norway in order to cut off the flow of Swedish iron ore to Germany. 6 The majority of the cabinet came round to the view that since the Finns were likely soon to be defeated there was no point in sending them any further aid and feared that Churchill's schemes might very well turn out to be a repeat performance of the Dardanelles disaster.7 Once the fighting was over in Finland, the British government became increasingly concerned about the problem of Soviet supplies to Germany and took up the suggestion, first made by the ministry of supply in October 1939 that the R.A.F. should launch a raid against the oilfields of the Caucasus. Churchill, who was in favour of this action even though it was diametrically opposite to his theory of the inevitability of conflict between the Soviet Union and Germany, suggested that submarines should be sent to the Black Sea and that a diplomatic initiative should be undertaken to win Turkish support for this strike against the Soviet Union. 8 Both Halifax and Chamberlain urged caution and further consideration of the implications of such a foolhardy move. 5 * CAB 65-2, 85-10, 16 Oct. 1939. CAB 65-5, 22-5, 24 Jan. 1940. • CAB 65-12, 68-4, '4 Mar. '94°' British Library, Harvey diaries, 14 Mar. 1940. 8 CAB 84-9, Ministry of supply to foreign office 31 Oct. 1939; CAB 65-6, 76-6, 27 Mar. 1940. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506 CHURCHILL AND THE SOVIET UNION 417 Calmer heads prevailed and the proposal to bomb the Caucasus oilfields was dropped. With the German attack on the West even the most avid proponents of the scheme were silenced and Churchill returned to his original belief that Germany and the Soviet Union were bound sooner or later to clash. In his first letter as prime minister to Stalin he stressed that with the defeat of France both Britain and the Soviet Union faced a common danger from the German hegemony over Europe and he expressed the hope that it would be possible for their two countries to work together to overcome this threat. 9 Even though British military intelligence insisted that Germany's attitude towards the Soviet Union was purely defensive, Churchill still stuck to his belief that the Nazis would attack in the East. At the end of October 1940 he told his military advisers that Germany would invade the Soviet Union in 1941 in order to grab the oilfields, but the chiefs of staff discounted this piece of inspired guesswork.10 At the same time he felt that it would be foolish to appear to be running after the Russians and he vehemently opposed Sir Strafford Cripps' proposal that Eden, who had recently been appointed foreign secretary, should go to Moscow, even making the preposterous suggestion that Eden might get arrested if he went.11 He felt that it would only be possible to start serious talks with the Russians from a position of strength and this was obviously not the case in early 1941. He therefore counselled 'sombre restraint on our part, and let them do the worrying'.1* As evidence mounted that the Germans were preparing for an attack on the Soviet Union it seemed reasonable to suppose that they might indeed soon begin to worry. Although Churchill believed that the signs of an impending German attack on the Soviet Union amounted to much more than an attempt by the Nazis to put pressure on their Soviet allies, he still felt that' Bear will be kept waiting a bit'. But on 3 April he drafted a message for Stalin passing on information that had been obtained from' Enigma' decrypts:' I have sure information from a trusted agent that when the Germans thought they had got Yugoslavia in the net, this is to say after March 20, they began to move three out of five Panzer Divisions from Romania to Southern Poland. The moment they heard of the Serbian revolution this movement was countermanded. Your Excellency will readily appreciate the significance of these facts.'13 Stafford Cripps, the ambassador in Moscow, refused to pass on this message to Stalin, saying that he had already told Vyshinski much the same thing but in much stronger language. Churchill was furious and blamed Cripps' 'obstinate, obstructive handling of the matter' for many of the difficulties he had with Stalin later in the war.14 In fact at the time Churchill did not press the matter very strongly and Cripps was supported in his stand by Eden, the foreign office and the joint intelligence committee. In part this was because Churchill could not reveal the • F.O. 371, 24840, 12 June 1940. 10 F. H. Hinsley, British intelligence in the second world war, (London, 1979), 1, 432. 11 PREM 3, 395-16, 22 Feb. 1941. 11 Sir Llewellyn W o o d w a r d , British foreign policy in the second world war, 1, 6 1 1 . 11 F.O. 371, 49479. " Gilbert, Finest hour, p. 1051. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506 418 MARTIN KITCHEN source of his information even to some of his closest advisers who tended to think that he was over-reacting to rumours, but also because the message itself was not very urgent, for it emphasized that German plans had been disrupted by the Yugoslav revolt. Churchill's subsequent harping on the incident and his sour references to it in his memoirs were largely due to the bitter political rivalry between him and Cripps which climaxed in a serious challenge to his premiership in 1942. By mid-June almost everyone in Whitehall was convinced that the Germans would soon attack the Soviet Union, but it was unclear what Britain could do to help. Churchill told cabinet that Germany should be represented as ' an insatiable tyrant' who had attacked Russia in order to grab the materials needed to continue the war. His colleagues expressed grave reservations about having the Soviet Union as an ally and there was general agreement that Germany would be victorious in four to six weeks.15 The British government expected the Germans to win yet another resounding victory and yet they did not draw up any contingency plans to meet this eventuality. Even Churchill, who was always ready to give advice and council, remained curiously silent. News that Germany had invaded the Soviet Union reached Chequers shortly after four in the morning of Sunday, 22 June. Since Churchill had given strict instructions never to be woken before eight o'clock unless England had been invaded, his anxious staff waited impatiently for four hours before giving him the news. He was delighted when his private secretary awoke him with these good tidings, announced that he would broadcast to the nation after the 9 o'clock news and sent a huge cigar to Eden who was also staying at Chequers for the weekend. Eden shared the prime minister's sense of relief, but not his taste for cigars before breakfast. Churchill went over the outline of his speech with Cripps, Beaverbrook and Cranborne, but he did not consult the cabinet, nor the foreign office, nor even Eden. The speech itself was a remarkable performance, the text was only finished just before the broadcast began. He started by stressing his undiminished opposition to communism and all it stood for and said that the Nazi regime was 'indistinguishable from the worst features of communism', but he insisted that in this new situation ' the past with all its follies and its tragedies, flashes away'. In a most unfortunate phrase which was to cause a great deal of embarassment later he spoke of'Russian soldiers standing on the threshold of their native land, guarding the fields which their fathers have tilled from time immemorial.' The prime minister was obviously so swept away by his own rhetoric that he forgot that Russian soldiers were standing in the Baltic states and in Poland - a fact that was not forgotten by the Soviets when they argued that the speech gave at least tacit recognition to their conquests since September 1939. Churchill was also very concerned that many of his countrymen would feel most uneasy fighting on the same side as the Soviet Union and therefore hastened to a d d : ' This is no class war, but a war in which the whole British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations is engaged, without 16 CAB 65-8, 61-7, 19 June 1941. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506 CHURCHILL AND THE SOVIET UNION 419 distinction of race, creed or party.' He argued that Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was a prelude to an invasion of Britain and t h a t ' The Russian danger is, therefore, our danger, and the danger of the United States, just as the cause of any Russian fighting for his hearth and home is the cause of free men and free peoples in every quarter of the globe. Let us learn the lessons already taught by such cruel experience. Let us redouble our exertions, and strike with united strength while life and power remain.' 16 A post mortem on the speech was held at Chequers later that evening. Eden and Cranborne agreed that the Soviet Union was not a jot better than Nazi Germany and that half the country would object vigorously to being the ally of such a power. Churchill dismissed these criticisms, saying that communism was irrelevant, it was now simply a matter of innocent people being slaughtered by a brutal invader.17 At a cabinet meeting the following day Churchill asked his colleagues whether there were any objections to his speech. No adverse comments were recorded.18 Churchill immediately called for a large-scale raid across the Channel while the Germans were busy in Russia and endorsed a fanciful scheme of H. G. Wells to burn down the Black Forest with incendiary bombs. The chiefs of staff successfully stopped these schemes and tried their best to curb the prime minister's enthusiasm for sending aid to Russia. Believing that the Soviet Union would soon be defeated, they felt that this would be merely pouring valuable material down the drain, and many agreed with General Ismay that 'the prospect of being allies with the Bolsheviks was repugnant'.1* The foreign office was equally unenthusiastic, and the fellowtravelling Q.C., D. N. Pritt, complained to Eden that they treated the Russians like a mistress who suddenly arrives in the middle of a wife's garden party. 20 Churchill was affected by this caution and suspicion and after several weeks of fighting offered even-money on Hitler being in Moscow by Christmas. Dill offered 5-4 on, Ismay 10-1 against. With the British defeats in Greece and Crete, and the desert war going badly, there seemed to be little to offer the Russians, and with the Germans driving on to Moscow Churchill's odds must have seemed to many to be wildly optimistic. The general feeling in Whitehall was that the most that could be hoped for was a brief breathing space. Prompted by Stafford Cripps, Churchill sent a telegram to Stalin on 7 July promising every possible help, giving a brief account of the bombing raids on Germany, promising a 'serious operation' in the Arctic and ending with the reassurance that: 'We have only to go on fighting to beat the life out of these villains.'*1 When Cripps handed this message to Stalin he was told that the " Winston S. Churchill, Tht grand alliance (New York, 1962), pp. 314-15. 17 Gilbert, Finest hour, p. 1122. " CAB 65-18, 62-4, 23 June 1941. For further discussion of policy towards the Soviet Union at this time see: Sheila Lawlor' Britain and the Russian entry into the war', in Richard Langhorne (ed.), Diplomacy and intelligence during the second world war (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 168-83. " H. Ismay, The memoirs of General Lord Ismay (London, i960), pp. 223, 225. 10 London School of Economics, D. N. Pritt Memoirs, p. 525. 11 Gilbert Finest hour, p. 1133. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506 420 MARTIN KITCHEN Soviet Union wanted a mutual assistance pact and a declaration that neither country would ever make a separate peace with Germany.22 Churchill took up Stalin's suggestion but there was strong opposition within the cabinet to a treaty which, it was feared, might meet with an unfavourable reception from public opinion. There was also a principled objection to Churchill's idea that the treaty should say something of post-war frontiers and the United States ambassador, Winant, was vehement in his opposition to this proposal. The prime minister came round to the view that it was best to avoid all political questions and to concentrate on fighting the war, and no mention of a pact was made in the reply which he sent to Stalin.23 The result of these exchanges was a declaration signed by Cripps and Molotov which in rather bizarre Russian-English stated that both powers would ' render to each other assistance of all kinds in present war against Hitlerite Germany'. In a note for the first sea lord, Churchill wrote: 'As long as they [the Russians] go on, it does not matter so much where the front lies.'24 But to Stalin it mattered a great deal, and in his first note to Churchill since the war began in Russia he called for a second front in France and a major operation in the Arctic.25 Although Stafford Cripps urged that: 'What is required now above all things is some action by us to demonstrate our desire to help even at some risk to ourselves if necessary,' Churchill ruled out the possibility of any such operation. He felt that a landing in France would result in a fiasco, since there were forty German divisions in France and substantial coastal defences, and after the disasters at Namsos and Crete he would not even consider an operation in the Arctic. The most he would offer were naval operations in the Arctic, an R.A.F. base at Murmansk and a joint raid on Spitzbergen.26 The cabinet expected a strong reaction from Stalin to this reply, especially as Maisky promptly expressed his bitter disappointment and demanded substantial quantities of military supplies.27 Great was the relief when Stalin told Cripps that he had 'no questions and no reproaches' and that he fully accepted Churchill's reasoning.28 Churchill replied to this generous response by firing off a memorandum to the service departments demanding top priority for supplies to the Soviet Union and promised Stalin aircraft, raw materials and between two and three million pairs of boots. He also urged Stalin to talk to Harry Hopkins who was planning to go to Russia, for Churchill hoped that the Americans would provide the bulk of the supplies for Russia, since his own service chiefs were singularly unresponsive to his requests to release material which was badly needed for the forthcoming offensive in North Africa.2* Harry Hopkins travelled back to the United States on the Prince of Wales with Churchill, who was to meet Roosevelt at Placentia Bay in Newfoundland. He was convinced that the Russians would be able to stop the Germans, but that they needed supplies to enable them to do the job. He therefore gave strong *' FO - 37'. 29467PREM 3, 395-16, Churchill 10 July 1941. ** Woodward, Bnttsh foreign policy, 11, 16-18. " Woodward, Bnttsh foreign policy, n, 18. 84 » CAB 65-19, 67-1, 9 > l y «94'M Ibid. «' F.O. 371-29471. •• Gilbert, Finest hour, p. 1143. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506 CHURCHILL AND THE SOVIET UNION 42I support to Churchill, who told the president that if Russia were to fall through lack of these supplies the situation would be desperate. In spite of the resistance of both the American and the British military authorities, Roosevelt and Churchill sent a joint message to Stalin promising to send the maximum possible amount of supplies and suggesting that a supply conference should be held in Moscow.30 The Americans began to drag their feet over the Moscow conference and the Russians were characteristically unforthcoming with information on their war production, weapons or troop deployments. Churchill urged the Americans to go to Moscow no later than the end of September, but at the same time he was anxious not to commit too much of Britain's war production to the Russians and as the Americans were to provide the bulk of the assistance he was in no position to push very strongly. A further note from Stalin demanding a second front either in France or in the Balkans which would draw 30-40 divisions away from the Russian front, and remarks from Maisky that the British were doing very little for the common war effort infuriated Churchill. He roared at the Soviet ambassador: ' Remember that only four months ago we in this island did not know whether you were not coming in against us on the German side. Indeed, we thought it quite likely that you would, even when we felt we should win the end. We never thought our survival was dependent on your action either way. Whatever happens, and whatever you do, you of all people have no right to make reproaches to us.' 81 To Cripps' call for a 'superhuman effort to help Russia' he replied that this implied 'an effort rising superior to space, time and geography' and added caustically that 'unfortunately these attributes are denied us'. 32 Stalin's reply to Churchill's offer of aid, which rashly ignored the limitations of both British and American supplies, was yet another demand for a second front and included the prepostrous statement that: 'Great Britain could without any risk land 25-30 Divisions or transport them across Iran to the southern regions of the U.S.S.R.' 33 This amounted to approximately the total number of troops in the United Kingdom and was greatly in excess of the number that the Iranian railway could handle. Churchill concluded therefore that the Soviet leader was living in a world of fantasy. He accepted that the Russians desperately needed war material but he deeply resented their ingratitude for what he felt were the great sacrifices being made on their behalf. The Russians for their part were suspicious that the British would not live up to their promises and felt that they were in any case being singularly unforthcoming with support. The Latin tag 'Bis dat qui cito dat' (He gives twice who gives quickly) which Churchill sent to Stalin did nothing to improve the M CAB 65-19, 84, 19 Aug. 1941; F.O. 371, 29569. Warren F. Kimball, Churchill and Roosevelt: the complete correspondence, vol. I, The alliance emerging, October ig^^-November 1942, (Princeton, 1984) p. 227, argues persuasively that aid to Russia was the' most concrete achievement of the RIVIERA conference.' 11 Churchill, The grand alliance, p. 386. u ** Gilbert, Finest hour, pp. 1:82-4. T.O. 371, 29489, 13 Sept. 1941. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506 422 MARTIN KITCHEN situation. By now he attributed the Russians' surliness to 'the guilt and self-reproach in their own hearts' for the two years they had been allied to Nazi Germany, but Cripps insisted that a full and open discussion of peace objectives and co-operation between the two countries over a new settlement for Europe was the only way to improve relations between the two countries. Churchill refused to consider such a course of action, whereupon Cripps threatened to resign his post as ambassador saying that he was being forced to prepare the ground 'in a hard frost without any implements'. 84 Cabinet discussed Stalin's message to Churchill of 8 November and agreed that Stalin should be told that Britain and the United States were bound by the Atlantic Charter and therefore there could be no question of a bilateral agreement with the Soviet Union about post-war frontiers. Maisky was told that His Majesty's government was 'surprised and pained' by the tone of Stalin's note, but Eden added that he proposed to go to Moscow to settle the outstanding political differences between the two countries.35 Churchill was in full agreement with this approach and rejected out of hand the foreign office's arguments that the Soviets had some reason to be suspicious of the British. Churchill did not reply to Stalin until 21 November when he suggested that Eden should go to Moscow with some military experts to discuss all outstanding political and military issues. Stalin welcomed this initiative and graciously replied that ' the differences of the state organisation between the U.S.S.R. on the one hand and Great Britain and the United States on the other hand should not and could not hinder us achieving a successful solution of all the fundamental questions concerning our mutual security and our legitimate interests'.36 As preparations were made for Eden's visit to Moscow, Cripps continued to insist that a settlement of post-war issues was essential and that the Baltic States should be sacrificed in the interests of strengthening the Anglo-Soviet alliance. But the foreign office was uncertain, and the prime minister was adamant that there should be no discussion of the post-war settlement until the fighting was over. Stalin was deeply suspicious that the Hess landing in Scotland on 10 May was all part of a scheme to forge an anti-Soviet Anglo-German alliance. It was suggested in cabinet that the British government should therefore make a supreme effort to convince Stalin that they would never contemplate a separate peace with the Germans. Churchill strongly opposed this suggestion, saying that it might very well be a good idea to negotiate with the German generals if they succeeded in overthrowing Hitler.37 Stalin's suspicions were therefore not entirely unfounded, and as Cripps never tired of pointing out, the British government gave much for his suspicious nature to brood on. Eden's visit to Moscow in December was a disaster. He came empty-handed •* F.O. 29471, Cripps 13 Nov. 1941. »5 CAB 65-24, fo. 33, Eden to Cripps 17 Nov. 1941. F.O. 371, 29472. 87 CAB 65-24, 120-5, 2 7 Nov. 1941. M Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506 CHURCHILL AND THE SOVIET UNION 423 and was treated to repeated demands from Stalin for recognition of Soviet claims to the Baltic states and to Finnish territory won in 1940. Eden tried to fend off these requests by stating that the Americans would not agree to any discussion of post-war boundaries.38 Churchill, who was ' reclining in the mellow sunlight of Palm Beach', telegraphed to Eden that the Soviet frontiers of 1941 'were acquired by acts of aggression in shameful collusion with Hitler' and that to recognize them would be ' contrary to all the principles for which we are fighting this war and would dishonour our cause'. The Soviet Union, he argued, had 'entered the war only when attacked by Germany, having previously shown themselves utterly indifferent to our fate, and, indeed, they added to our burdens in our worst danger'. He was convinced that after the war they would need Britain's support to get back on their feet again and therefore it was not necessary to make any concessions. The British government would abide by the spirit of the Atlantic charter and the Baltic states would be able to decide their own fate by 'freely and fairly conducted plebiscites'.•• The question of Soviet frontiers was discussed by the cabinet when Churchill returned to London at a meeting on 6 February 1942.40 Beaverbrook was an outspoken advocate of recognition of the Soviet claims, Eden sat on the fence, and Attlee strongly opposed the suggestion. Churchill refused to listen to any of these arguments and was adamant that all questions of frontiers should be left until a peace conference, a point of view which many of his cabinet colleagues felt was an attempt to avoid the issues. Beaverbrook resigned from the cabinet three days later, saying that he could no longer stay in a government which refused to accept the Soviet claims.41 Churchill was unable to make up his mind on this issue which was central to any improvement of relations with the Soviet Union. He could not decide whether the Russians were perfidious aggressors in the Baltic states or whether they were simply defending their legitimate national interests. On 7 March Churchill wrote to the president that since the Russians had agreed to the Atlantic charter when they were in possession of the Baltic states, this issue should not stand in the way of an understanding with them.42 This extraordinary argument overlooked the obvious fact that at this stage of the war Soviet possession of the Baltic states was purely theoretical. Churchill wanted to avoid having to choose between the Soviet and the American position on the Baltic states and ended by leaving it to the Americans to sort out the difficulties. This was no solution, and the Russians regarded it merely as an excuse. When Molotov visited London in May 1942 he emphasized the second front and the post-war settlement, but was content with a treaty which promised mutual assistance and a guarantee not to seek a separate peace. Churchill was pleased with the treaty and felt that Anglo-Soviet relations were now on a completely different footing.43 He ordered the service chiefs to prepare raids » CAB 64-24, 133-8. »• CAB 65-29, 17-5. A.J. P. Taylor, Beaverbrook (New York, 1972), p. 511. " F.O. 371, 32877. " CAB 65-30, 68-2, 26 May 1942. " CAB 65-30, 73, 11 June 1942. 40 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506 424 MARTIN KITCHEN on the continent later that year and envisaged a full-scale invasion with the Americans in 1943.44 It soon became all too apparent that the time restraints were so great that such raids in September were out of the question, but planning went ahead for a 'hit-and-run' operation at Dieppe which was to be launched on 18 August. The Soviets continued to insist that Molotov had been given a solemn promise that there would be a second front that year and accused the British government of bad faith. The disaster that befell convoy PQ. 17 led to the cancelling of further convoys, a move which the Soviets interpreted as a refusal to continue supplies. Churchill reacted to the harsh criticism from the Soviet government by calling for landings in France and also in North Africa in 1942 and when he made this plea to Roosevelt the president replied that the Russians should be made a promise of a second front in 1942.4S All this was wishful thinking, for the T O R C H landings in North Africa would make it impossible to mount an invasion of France in the same year. The new British ambassador in Moscow, the colourful Archibald Clark Kerr, felt that the only way out of the impasse was for the prime minister to visit Stalin. Churchill agreed, and in spite of his cabinet colleagues' concern over his health he arrived in Moscow on 12 August. Churchill reacted very badly to Stalin's taunts about the lack of a second front and the cancelling of the convoys and was, as the ambassador put it, 'at his bloody worst and his worst is really bloody'. He came to the conclusion that what the prime minister really needed was 'a good root up the arse'. 46 Having insulted his guests by arriving at a banquet in his honour in his siren-suit, Churchill left the dinner in a towering rage and was totally impervious to Stalin's determined efforts to charm him. Back in his dacha, he announced that he was leaving in the morning and would never speak to Stalin again. Next morning Clark Kerr managed to placate his tiresome visitor and persuaded him to meet Stalin again. This meeting was bizarre but on a personal level was successful. Churchill's visit to Moscow was therefore hardly a turning-point in Anglo-Soviet relations, but a disastrous rift between Churchill and Stalin had been averted. Churchill genuinely admired Stalin and felt that his avowal of friendship was sincere. Subsequently he was to explain some of his more wayward behaviour by suggested that he was a mere tool of the Politburo - a misleading notion which seems to have originated with Desmond Morton, Churchill's principal link with the world of intelligence. Back in London, Churchill told the cabinet that he was most impressed by Stalin and ' had formed the highest opinion of his sagacity'.47 He told the chiefs of staff committee that keeping Russia supplied was ' one of the three or four most important vital objects before us'. He felt that this could be done by clearing the Germans out of northern Norway in his pet scheme 'Operation Jupiter' and then resuming the PQ, convoys.48 This was a further example of Churchill's impetuosity, for Operation Torch would mean that no landing 44 PREM 3, 392-2, Churchill to Roosevelt 27 July 1942. Roosevelt to Churchill, 29july 1942. " F.O. 800, 300. " CAB 65-31, 118-2, 25 Aug. 1942. 47 48 CAB 65-31, fo. 123. CAB 65-32, 135-1, 7 Oct. 1942, draft telegram to Stalin. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506 CHURCHILL AND THE SOVIET UNION 425 craft would be available for Operation Jupiter. He was convinced that he had to make some gesture of help towards the Soviet Union and on 7 October he wrote to Stalin proposing to send 5 bomber and 9 fighter squadrons from the R.A.F. and one transport and one heavy bomber squadron from the U.S.A.A.F. to arrive in early 1943. Stalin did not bother to answer this note for almost one month, and by then the Soviet position had improved so much that the Caucasus was no longer in danger. On 13 December Molotov turned down the proposal flat, arguing that it would disrupt the flow of supplies via the Persian Gulf.48 Faced with this response from the Soviets, Churchill told the war cabinet that it was vitally important to open the second front in 1943 as Stalin had ' prompted him' on this point during his visit to Moscow.60 After the Casablanca conference in January 1943, Churchill wrote disingenuously to Stalin suggesting that there might be a cross-channel invasion in August 1943 if there were enough landing craft. Stalin, who had heard this proviso before, correctly took this as meaning that there would be no second front in France before 1944.51 Churchill was perplexed by Stalin's bitter complaints and told Eden that he felt there were two Stalins:' a. Stalin himself, personally cordial to me. b. Stalin in council, a grim thing behind him, which we and he have both to reckon with.'52 Although attempts were made to find out who made up this putative opposition group within the Soviet government, the 'grim thing' was never discovered and much time and effort was wasted in pursuit of this chimera. After the victories at Stalingrad and El Alamein and the successful conclusion of the North African campaign, the British government slowly began to turn its attention to the likely shape of the post-war world. Churchill was informed of a foreign office proposal for tripartite talks with the Americans and the Russians on the post-war world when he was in bed with pneumonia. The head of the northern department wrote to Clark Kerr that Churchill 'on seeing the telegram emitted a series of most vicious screams from his sickbed and ordained the whole subject of post-war matters should be dropped at once like the hottest of hot bricks'.*3 Yet although he did not want to discuss the post-war settlement, he was convinced that Russia would be the overwhelmingly preponderant power in Europe after the war and proposed that France should be built up as the main European defence against a potentially dangerous Soviet Union. The Soviet Union would be the only continental country able to use force 'and that to a measureless and unlimited extent'. 54 It was clear from the outset that the major problem would be the question of the Russo-Polish frontier. By 1943 both the British and American governments were prepared to accept the Curzon Line as the frontier, but the Polish government-in-exile in London demanded the restoration of the frontiers of 1 September 1939. Churchill had tremendous admiration for the Poles, on " PREM 3, 392-3. " Woodward, British foreign policy, n, 547. 68 F.O. 800, 301, Warner to Clark Kerr 16 Mar. 1943. M PREM 4, 30-2. 50 CAB 65-28, 162. " F.O. 954, 26 part 1. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506 426 MARTIN KITCHEN whose behalf Britain had entered the war and who had fought so hard and so valiantly for the Allied cause. On the other hand, he felt that the London Poles were a tiresome set of intriguers who, with the exception of the prime minister General Sikorski, lived in a world of dangerous fantasy. He complained to the foreign office that he found their 'usual fissiparous and subversive agitation' singularly irksome.55 When in April 1943 the Germans announced the discovery of a mass grave at Katyn in which were found the bodies of some 10,000 Polish officers purported to have been shot by the Russians, Churchill's initial reaction was to tell Sikorski that it was an obvious propaganda move by the Germans, and he urged the cabinet to ignore the whole incident and not to allow the Nazis to sow discord between the allies.58 The Poles immediately believed that what the Germans said was true, and Clark Kerr strongly supported this point of view, but added that he strongly opposed the idea of an investigation by the Red Cross as this might well prove Soviet guilt and therefore seriously endanger the alliance.57 Churchill agreed, disingenuously telling Stalin that he opposed the German suggestion of a Red Cross investigation as it 'would be a fraud and its conclusions reached by terrorism'. In short, the British government felt that the Katyn massacre was acutely embarassing and should be ignored as far as possible. As Churchill phrased it: 'There is no use prowling round the three year old graves of Smolensk.'58 At the first sign of criticism from the Polish government, Stalin told Churchill that he no longer recognized it, then he called on the prime minister to get Sikorski to change the personnel of his government. Churchill sympathized and told Eden: ' we must not be too tender with these unwise people. I trust you will be successful in inducing Sikorski to reconstruct his Government.'88 A few weeks later Sikorski was killed in a plane crash. This was a terrible blow to the British government, for there was no other statesman of similar stature among the London Poles, and none who was prepared seriously to negotiate with the Russians. In the summer of 1943, the issue of the second front was still the most important question affecting Anglo-Soviet relations. Churchill told Clark Kerr that he was tired of Stalin's constant harping on this theme and said: 'Nothing will induce me in any circumstances to allow what at this stage I am advised and convinced would be a useless massacre of British troops on the channel beaches in order to remove Soviet suspicions. I am getting rather tired of these repeated scoldings, considering that they have never been actuated by anything but cold-blooded self-interest and total disdain of our lives and fortunes.'60 Stalin was not impressed by such arguments, saying that a country that had suffered as many casualties as the Soviet Union was unmoved by the prospect of a possible 100,000 casualties. Such talk only served to make » PREM 3, 354-8. " PREM 3, 354-8. M CAB 65-34, 56-5> '9 APr- '943" Ibid. *• PREM 3, 354-9, Churchill to Eden 10 May 1943. •° PREM 3, 237-11, Churchill to Clark Kerr 16 June 1943. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506 CHURCHILL AND THE SOVIET UNION 4.27 Churchill even more determined to push on to Sicily and Italy before invading France, and at the Quebec conference in August 1943 he managed to persuade the reluctant Americans to continue with his Mediterranean strategy. The Soviets were angry at the Quebec conference decision to invade Italy rather than France, and were even more infuriated when they were excluded from the Allied Military Governments (AMGOTs), the organs by which occupied Italy was governed. There were noises from Moscow about 'AngloAmerican Gauleiter' and 'Quislings', and there were many people in the foreign office who felt that signing an armistice with General Badoglio without first consulting the Soviets was a serious violation of the spirit of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty. 61 Churchill was by now in a belligerently anti-Soviet mood. At a cabinet meeting on 5 October Churchill announced that Germany would have to be strengthened after the war as a bulwark against the Soviet Union, a suggestion that was warmly supported by General Smuts who attended the meeting. Eden was horrified at this suggestion and thought that it was part of a larger scheme to wriggle out of a second front in 1944 and to build up an anti-Soviet bloc. He decided that he would resign if this was indeed the case.*2 Churchill told Eden that a ' treaty with SU on her western frontiers would split H of C. I think we should do everything in our power to persuade the Poles to agree with the Russians about their eastern frontier, in return for gains in East Prussia and Silesia. We could certainly promise to use our influence in this respect.'*3 This was mere wishful thinking, for after Sikorski's death there was no hope whatever of the Poles reaching an agreement with the Soviets on a common frontier. As Churchill prepared to meet Roosevelt and Stalin at Teheran, his principal concern was with the painfully slow progress of the Italian campaign. As he wrote to the chiefs of staff: ' The Germans have been able to withdraw several divisions from Italy, including one from the south of Rome in order to meet the needs on the Russian front. We have therefore failed to take the weight of the attack off the Soviets.'*4 He knew that he would have to face Stalin with a very poor hand, and he arrived in Teheran tired, frustrated, badly prepared and heading for a serious illness. The treatment of the Polish question was so off-hand that Stalin must have felt that it was a matter of little concern to the British government and he was delighted that the western Allies had granted the Soviet Union the right to establish what were euphemistically described as 'friendly governments' in eastern Europe. The problem for Churchill was now to convince the Poles to negotiate with the Russians before the Red Army overran the country and they would be in no position to resist Soviet demands. The Polish prime minister, Mikolajczyk, told the prime minister that he could never accept the Curzon Line, as four million Poles lived on the other side of it.65 11 F.O. 371, 37033. • 3 PREM 3, 355-4, Churchill to Eden 6 Oct. 1943. M PREM 3, 76-12, Churchill to C.O.S. 21 Nov. 1943. •« Harvey diaries, 27 Oct. 1943. «s PREM 3, 355-7. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506 428 MARTIN KITCHEN Churchill was getting increasingly annoyed with the Poles' stubbornness and wrote to Eden: ' I rather contemplate telling the world that we declared war for Poland and that the Polish nation shall have a proper land to live in, but we have never undertaken to defend existing Polish frontiers, and that Russia, after two wars which have cost her between twenty and thirty millions of Russian lives has a right to the inexpugnable security of her western border They [the Poles] must be very silly if they imagine we are going to begin a new war with Russia for the sake of the Polish eastern border.'68 He then wrote to Stalin telling him that he hoped to make the Poles see reason and told Eden that the more frustrated he got with the Poles the more he sympathized with the Russians. He wrote: 'The tremendous victories of the Russian armies, the deep-seated changes which have taken place in the character of the Russian state and government, the new confidence which has grown in our hearts towards Stalin - these have all had their effect."' This feeling of good will towards the Soviets was short-lived. The Russians made it plain that they had no intention of negotiating with the London Poles and there were already indications that they were thinking of setting up a rival Polish government under their auspices. Churchill complained that: 'trying to maintain good relations with a Communist is like wooing a crocodile. You do not know whether to tickle it under the chin or to beat it over the head. When it opens its mouth you cannot tell whether it is trying to smile or prepare to eat you up.' 68 And yet he still found it necessary to remind the cabinet that 'only Russian sacrifices and victories hold out any prospect of the restoration of a free Poland'. It was hoped that direct talks between Churchill and Stalin were the best hope for a satisfactory solution to the Polish frontier question.69 This was all the more pressing as it seemed quite possible that fighting would soon break out between the Polish underground army and the Red Army once the Soviets approached Polish territory. Churchill's efforts to get the Polish government to accept the Curzon line were all in vain and a frustrated prime minister said that Soviet demands on Poland were 'in my opinion no more than what is right and just for Russia, without whose prodigious exertions no vestige of Poland would remain free from German annihilation or subjugation'. But he added the proviso:' If of course the view is adopted that Russia is going to present herself as a new Nazi Germany ideologically inverted, we shall have to make what head we can against another tyranny, and this would have to be borne in mind when considering the position which a chastened Germany would occupy.'70 Churchill was thus frustrated at every turn. He was uncertain what to make of the Soviets or to decide whether they would be friend or foe. The Poles refused to negotiate and the Russians saw no reason why they should not dictate their own terms. Then he began to speculate that Stalin was the prisoner of his victorious generals who were determined to keep the British out •• " " •• Ibid. Churchill to Eden 7 Jan. 1944. PREM 3, 399-6, Churchill to Eden 16 Jan. 1944. Arthur Bryant, Triumph in the west (London, 1959), p. 140. CAB 65-45, I I - I , 25 Jan. 1944. '• PREM 3, 355-8, ChurchiU 15 Feb. 1944. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506 CHURCHILL AND THE SOVIET UNION 429 of eastern Europe. He told Eden: 'Although I have tried in every way to put myself in sympathy with these Communist leaders I cannot feel the slightest trust or confidence in them. Force and facts are their only realities.' He even began to worry that the Soviets might ' tip the wink to the Germans and let them move troops west when we get on the Continent'. 71 As the Red Army marched steadily west, the British government began to think about the post-war world and the policies the Soviet Union was likely to pursue. Churchill was slow to turn his attention to this problem, at first being mainly concerned with the Balkans and with Italy. Fitzroy Maclean told the foreign office that Tito had no intention of becoming a Soviet official and would try to play the British and the Americans off against the Russians 'in the approved Balkan fashion' and he felt that the Soviets wanted a friendly but independent Yugoslavia and did not seek to excercise direct control. Churchill, who did not worry what kind of government came to power in Yugoslavia, provided it did not simply become a Soviet satellite, agreed with Maclean's assessment and henceforth referred to Yugoslavia as 'Titoland'. 72 President Roosevelt was furious when he learned that Eden and the Soviet ambassador Gusev had made a deal over Romania and Greece which established British and Soviet spheres of influence. Churchill replied angrily that swift action was needed in Greece to stop the country going communist and that the Russians would be able to do whatever they liked in Romania. Roosevelt would not accept these arguments and Churchill replied with the warning that ' I t would be quite easy for me, on the general principle of slithering to the left which is so popular in foreign policy, to let thingsripwhen the King of Greece would probably be forced to abdicate and EAM would work in reign of terror in Greece, forcing the villagers and many other classes to form Security Battalions under German auspices to prevent anarchy.' Carried away by the vision of a British policy free from American interference, Churchill even managed to convince himself that he might be able to persuade Tito to support the King of Yugoslavia.73 In the summer of 1944 Churchill showed little concern for Soviet post-war policy. In a widely publicized speech, General Smuts suggested that Britain would have to sponsor a western bloc to offset Britain's weakness vis-d-vis the Soviets and the Americans. Eden pointed out in the house of commons that the Dumbarton Oaks agreement had accepted the idea of 'regional associations'. There was some talk that this western bloc would also include Germany. Churchill was horrified at these suggestions. He still saw Germany as Britain's great enemy. He said that the idea of even considering the Germans as potential allies was utterly repugnant to him, even though this was being actively considered by the chiefs of staff and he had made a similar proposal some months before.74 The foreign office felt that a western bloc which included 11 PREM 3, 396-14. " F.O. 371, 48928. F.O. 371, 43636, Roosevelt to Churchill 11 June 1944; Churchill to Roosevelt 11 June 1944; Roosevelt to Churchill 22 June 1944; Churchill to Roosevelt 23 June 1944. " CAB21-1614. 73 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506 43° MARTIN KITCHEN Germany would make a clash with the Soviet Union inevitable. The chiefs of staff felt that it was essential to counteract the enormous power of an expansionist Russia. Churchill did nothing to intervene in this fundamental difference of opinion, thus leaving the British government without a coherent policy. Gladwyn Jebb, the post-hostilities planner, complained bitterly that the prime minister was an 'old autocrat surrounded by his advisors' who was bored with post-war affairs and refused to give the leadership which was necessary.?s Churchill's lack of concern at this time with the details of post-war planning was in part due to his continued hope that cooperation with the Russians was still possible. Even the formation of a Soviet dominated Polish committee of national liberation in Lublin did not alter this view and he assured the cabinet that the Lublin committee were neither communists nor Quislings but genuine Polish patriots. He told Roosevelt that he hoped that some kind of fusion between the London and Lublin Poles might be possible, and Stalin's soothing words on the topic were, he said, 'the best ever received from U J . [Uncle Joe]'." The attitude of the Soviets to the Warsaw uprising, which Stalin condemned as a criminal adventure, put an end to this brief period of optimism. Churchill was strongly affected by the heroic struggle of the people of Warsaw, was moved by the passionate public support for the insurgents, and true to his belief that anyone who 'killed Huns', whatever their political affiliations, should be given every possible support, he placed top priority on assistance to the beleaguered city. He suggested to the president that if the Russians refused to let the western allies use their airfields to fly supplies in to Warsaw, further convoys to the Soviet Union should be cancelled." At the same time Churchill did not share the popular view that the Russians had deliberately stopped outside Warsaw to allow the Germans to deal with their political rivals in the home army. Irritated as he was by the callous attitude of the Soviets, he was equally angered by the constant complaints and attacks of the London Poles. Thus in spite of the success of the Normandy landings, Anglo-Soviet relations continued to deteriorate. Churchill therefore resolved to make a second trip to Moscow to demonstrate that the British government was determined to reach a satisfactory settlement of these issues and to demonstrate their determination to live up to the spirit of the Anglo-Soviet treaty. The prime minister arrived with the foreign secretary in the Soviet capital on 9 October 1944 and had his first meeting with Stalin that evening.78 Churchill told Stalin that he stood by the agreement made in Teheran on the Polish frontiers. Stalin promised that he would try to bring the London Poles and the Lublin Poles together. After a brief further discussion, Churchill slipped a small piece of paper across the table to Stalin on which the following 75 Dal ton diaries, 9 June 1944. " PREM 3, 355-12, Stalin to Churchill 23 July 1944; Churchill to Roosevelt 26 July 1944; Churchill to Stalin 27 July 1944; Stalin to Churchill 28 July 1944; Churchill to Roosevelt 29 July 1944. " Ibid. 78 F.O. 800, 414 for a record of Churchill's visit to Moscow. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506 CHURCHILL AND THE SOVIET UNION 431 figures were written: Romania 90% to Russia, Greece 90% to Britain, Yugoslavia 50-50, Hungary 50-50, Bulgaria 75 % to Russia. Stalin looked at the list, changed Bulgaria to 90 % and ticked it with a fat blue pencil.79 After some further haggling over percentages between Molotov and Eden, during which the Soviet share in Romania was reduced to 80%, Churchill began to have some second thoughts. He drafted a letter for Stalin in which he expressed his fear that these figures ' might be considered crude, and even callous, if they were exposed to the scrutiny of the Foreign Offices and diplomats all over the world'. He told Stalin that he believed that the dissolution of the Communist International showed that the Soviets no longer wished to precipitate bloody revolutions and that Hitler would no longer be able to exploit the fear of 'an aggressive, proselytising Communism'. In a second note he wrote:' We have a feeling that, viewed from afar and on a grand scale, the differences between our systems will tend to get smaller and the great common ground which we share of making life richer and happier for the mass of the people is growing every year.'80 On reflexion, Churchill decided not to send either note, possibly because-however anxious he was to establish friendly relations with Stalin-he disliked the pleading tone of these messages. A further meeting was arranged between the two statesmen to which Mikolajczyk and Romer were invited. Churchill supported Stalin's stand on the Curzon line, telling the Poles that it was unreasonable to expect the Soviets to tolerate an unfriendly Poland after all the blood that had been shed and adding that the British government supported the Soviets not because they were strong and powerful, but because they were right in this matter. Mikolajczyk shouted at Churchill and Stalin that he had not come to Moscow to participate in yet another partition of his country. After meeting members of the Lublin committee Churchill told Mikolajczyk that he had missed a golden opportunity to negotiate with the Russians and that his intransigence had strengthened the hand of the Lublin Poles. The Polish premier replied that the Great powers had decided the frontier question at Teheran and that he was simply being presented with a fait accompli. Churchill lost his temper completely and yelled that Mikolajczyk should be locked up in a lunatic asylum and that he should go ahead and conquer Russia on his own if he wanted to. After that he stormed out of the room. Churchill did manage to get Mikolajczyk to accept the Curzon line as a line of demarcation, but this compromise was unacceptable to Stalin. In spite of this difficulty he was delighted with his meetings with Stalin. He wrote to Attlee from Moscow: ' We have talked with an ease, freedom and a beau geste never before attained between our two countries. Stalin has made several expressions of personal regard which I feel were all sincere. But I repeat my conviction '• PREM 3, 66-7 for the original of this famous document. See also: Albert Resis, 'The Churchill-Stalin secret" percentage" agreement on the Balkans, Moscow October 1944'. American Historical Review, LXXXIU, (April 1978). 80 PREM 3, 66-7. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506 432 MARTIN KITCHEN that he is by no means alone. 'Behind the horseman sits dull care'. 81 Both Churchill and Eden were pleased with the percentage agreement and were convinced that Stalin was a man who kept his word. On his return to London, Churchill told the cabinet that the Soviet Union was ' ready and anxious' to cooperate with the British government, and he cautioned that 'No immediate threat of war lay ahead of us once the present war was over and we should be careful of assuming commitments consequent on the formation of a Western bloc that might impose a very heavy military burden upon us.'82 Churchill's opposition to the idea of a western bloc was due in large measure to the fact that he was dubious whether it would ever be effective. In a note for Eden he pointed out that it would take France from five to ten years to build up her army and added: 'The Belgians are extremely weak and their behaviour before the war was shocking. The Dutch are entirely selfish and fought only when they were attacked, and then for a few hours. Denmark is helpless and defenceless and Norway practically so.' For a western bloc to be effective, Britain would have to contribute fifty to sixty Divisions which was clearly absurd and he asked how anyone could entertain such preposterous ideas.83 By the time Stalin gave official recognition to the Lublin committee, Churchill had already lost interest in the problem of Poland's eastern frontier. He told the cabinet that if the Poles stopped nagging he might consider trying to persuade Stalin to drop his claim to Lvov, but he added that it did not matter where the eastern frontier of Poland lay as they could easily be compensated in the west. To Bevin's objections that this would involve moving millions of people away from their homes he replied that he saw no problem with this, as the Russians and the Turks had done a very good job of this sort of thing in the past.84 On the other hand he felt that the western Neisse frontier, which would result in Silesia going to Poland would be excessive and suggested that recognition of the Lublin committee could be accorded in return for a Soviet acceptance of the eastern Neisse.85 Churchill tried to stop Poland getting the western Neisse at the Yalta conference, telling Stalin that 'it would be a great pity to stuff the Polish goose so full of German food that it died of indigestion'. Stalin countered that there would be no problem because the Germans had all run away. He magnanimously agreed to free elections in Poland, saying that in spite of the efforts of the London Poles, the Russians were seen in Poland as liberators, and added that the western frontier of Poland could be settled at the peace conference. Cadogan, who was very distressed at Churchill's performance at Yalta and who described him as a 'silly old man', still felt that they had 'got an agreement on Poland which may heal differences for some time at least, 81 82 88 84 85 PREM 3, 397-3, Churchill to Attlee 18 Oct. 1944 quoting Horace, Odes, in, 40. CAB 65-48, 157, 27 Nov. 1944. CAB 21-1614, Churchill to Eden 25 Nov. 1944. CAB 65-51, 7-4, 22 Jan. 1945. CAB 65-51, 10-1, 26 Jan. 1945. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506 CHURCHILL AND THE SOVIET UNION 433 86 and assure some degree of independence to the Poles'. Churchill was also delighted with the Yalta conference and told the cabinet that' As far as Premier Stalin was concerned he was quite sure that he meant well to the world and to Poland.' He told his colleagues that the Soviets were behaving very well in Greece and that when the Russians gave their word, they kept it.87 Shortly after this cabinet meeting he said: 'Poor Neville Chamberlain believed he could trust Hitler. He was wrong. But I don't think I'm wrong about Stalin.'88 Gradually Churchill began to realize that he had been outwitted by the Russians at Yalta, and that expressions such as 'democratic' and 'anti-fascist' meant quite different things to Stalin from what they did to him. He therefore decided to make a direct appeal to Stalin in the hope that there was some substance to the friendship which he believed existed between them. At the end of March he addressed the Soviet leader: 'No-one has pleaded the cause of Russia with more fervour and conviction than I have tried to do. I was the first to raise my voice on June 22, 1941. It is more than a year since I proclaimed to a startled world the justice of the Curzon Line for Russia's Western Frontier, and this frontier has now been accepted by both the British Parliament and the President of the United States. It is as a sincere friend of Russia that I make my personal appeal to you and your colleagues to come to a good understanding about Poland with the Western Democracies and not to smite down the hands of comradeship in the future guidance of the world which we now extend.'89 Stalin was in no mood to be soothed by these words. He had just learned that the British and Americans were negotiating for the surrender of the German troops in Italy without even consulting their Soviet allies, which was a clear violation of the treaty.90 The Soviet sponsored coup d'etat in Romania in February 1945 did not trouble Churchill unduly. He felt that as the Soviets had been extremely scrupulous over Greece it would be impossible to complain about Romania. To Roosevelt he wrote: 'Since the October Anglo-Russian conversations in Moscow Stalin has subscribed on paper to the principles of Yalta which are being trampled down in Romania. Nevertheless I am most anxious not to press this view to such an extent that Stalin will say (quote) I did not interfere with your action in Greece, why do you not give me the same latitude in Romania (unquote).' 91 There was general agreement in Whitehall that the Soviet domination of Romania was a fair price to pay for a free hand against the left in Greece and Churchill showed a similar lack of concern with the course of events in Bulgaria and even Hungary, where the Soviet forces were far more cooperative and flexible. But by May of 1945 Churchill was getting increasingly ** Churchill College, Cambridge, Cadogan papers, diary 11 Feb. 1945. 87 CAB 65-21, 22-1, 19 Feb. 1945. 88 Dalton diary, 23 Feb. 1945. 8 * F.O. 371, 47585, Churchill to Stalin 31 Mar. 1945. 90 CAB 65-52, 40, 5 Apr. 1945. Bradley F. Smith and Elena Agarossi, Operation Sunrise (New York, 1979). •> PREM 3, 350-9, Churchill to Roosevelt 8 Mar. 1945. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506 434 MARTIN KITCHEN concerned, as the Soviet Union tightened its grip on eastern Europe. On 18 May he gave a luncheon for Gusev and said to his somewhat startled guest in response to his own question as to how the Russians were responding to the new situation in Europe: 'By dropping an iron screen across Europe from Lubeck to Trieste behind which we had no knowledge of what was happening. All we know was that puppet governments were being set up about which we were not consulted, and at which we were not allowed to peep... All this incomprehensible and intolerable. The Prime Minister and H.M. Government objected in the strongest terms to being treated as if they were of no account in the after-war world. They felt that they still counted for something and they refused to be pushed about. Their determination not to see this happen had moved them to postpone the demobilisation of the Royal Air Force.'92 When Clark Kerr heard of this encounter he was horrified and thought that the prime minister had gone too far. He felt that the Soviet Union was solely concerned with its own security against the possible renewal of German aggression and was indifferent though not hostile to the west.93 As the war drew to a close Churchill became obsessed with the view held by the post-hostilities planners that the Soviet Union was a potentially deadly enemy which posed a real threat to the British empire. With the explosion of the first atomic bomb over Japan, Churchill began to imagine that he had found a solution to all his problems. The chief of the imperial general staff wrote in his diary that Churchill ' at once painted a wonderful picture of himself as the sole possessor of these bombs and capable of dumping them where he wished, thus all-powerful and capable of dictating to Stalin'. 94 Brooke, who was keenly aware that Russia was now all-powerful in Europe, was appalled at such talk, for there were all kinds of problems of production and delivery of atomic bombs and it was obvious that sooner or later the Soviets would build their own. When he heard that the planners were considering the possibility of war with the Soviet Union, he wrote: 'The idea is of course, fantastic and the chances of success quite impossible.'95 At the end of the war the foreign office tended to think of the Soviet Union as a country obsessed with its own security and although its policies in eastern Europe were brutal and the disregard shown to its allies was reprehensible, its policy was understandable and did not pose a threat to vital British interests. The post-hostilities planners felt that this was hopelessly misguided and optimistic and began to think of the Soviet Union as being as great a threat as Nazi Germany had been. Churchill wavered between these two positions. He was unable to make up his mind whether Stalin was his friend and partner with whom he could help to construct a peaceful and secure Europe, or whether he was determined to dominate Europe and to destroy the British empire. At Potsdam, Churchill no longer felt Stalin to be a friend he could trust, as he had done at Yalta, but he had yet to revert to his full anti-communist militancy, as he did at Fulton, Missouri. Behind all this uncertainty was the slow and 92 94 PREM 3, 396-12. Bryant, Triumph in the west, p. 478. »3 F.O. 371 47076. *5 Ibid, p. 469. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506 CHURCHILL AND THE SOVIET UNION 435 painful realization that Britain's power and prestige had declined drastically and this superb nineteenth-century prime minister was in command of a state which had long since ceased to be a truly great power. It was a mark of Churchill's genius that this fact was often disguised and his influence on the course of the war and on the political settlement which followed was out of all proportion to the resources at his command. His greatest weakness was his inability to face the fact of Britain's decline and to tailor his policies accordingly. Britain and the Soviet Union had been brought together by Hitler's lust for conquest and for no other reason. The old suspicions and misunderstandings were bound to resurface as soon as the German menace was crushed. Churchill's policy towards the Soviet Union vividly reflects this central fact. However much he loathed communism and the Soviet system, he knew that Britain needed the support of the Soviet Union against Germany, and was even prepared to accept Soviet expansion in the Baltic, Poland and in Finland in order to secure that support. But Churchill was seldom consistent and was easily carried away by such madcap schemes as the proposal to attack the Soviet oilfields in the spring of 1940. His fertile and restless brain never concentrated for long on any one topic, and it is astonishing how little attention he paid to Soviet affairs, even though he was one of the first to realize how important the Soviet Union would be for the defeat of Germany. He was never able to make up his mind about the Soviet Union and his reactions to Soviet moves were often impulsive and ill-considered. No contingency plans were made for a Soviet defeat in 1941, even though this was expected and the consequences for Britain would have been catastrophic. Although he came round to the belief that concessions would have to be made over the Baltic states, Poland and the undertaking not to negotiate a separate peace, unlike Stafford Cripps he failed to realize that these were vitally important questions for the Soviet Union and had to be settled quickly if any political benefit was to be gained. Similarly, Churchill never appreciated how serious the issue of the second front was to the Soviet government and that by delaying the second front he was weakening the hand he had to play. The Italian campaign was painfully slow, failed to draw German forces from the eastern front, and further delayed the invasion of France. Supplies sent to the Soviet Union were relatively modest and the cancellation of the convoys further damaged relations between the two countries. All this meant that Churchill had very little to offer the Russians and nothing to offset their power in eastern Europe. It was typical of Churchill to overestimate the value of personal contacts with other statesmen and to imagine a friendship where none existed. He seriously misjudged Stalin the man, and failed to realize the dominant role he played in the Soviet state. His feelings towards the Soviet leader changed rapidly, just as his feelings of genuine sympathy for the Soviet people could easily turn to distrust and frustration. In his single-minded determination to defeat the Germans, he neglected the Soviet Union and undervalued their contributions to the common cause. Then, in the final stages of the war, he Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506 MARTIN KITCHEN realized that they were all-powerful in eastern Europe and that there was nothing that could be done to dislodge them. It therefore seemed that the Yalta agreement was extremely satisfactory to the western allies and that the Soviets had made real concessions. But when the full extent of British powerlessness in the very moment of victory became apparent, and when the Soviets began to implement their version of democracy and anti-fascism in their sphere of influence, Churchill reacted in bitter frustration, but even the atom-bomb could not redress the balance. Even at his most pessimistic moments Churchill never considered the possibility of continuing the war against the Soviet Union. He shared the common feeling that the communists were preferable to the Nazis, and since they were no longer revolutionaries or fanatical ideologues, he imagined that the peoples of eastern Europe could reasonably expect a decent and dignified future, for the Soviet satellite-system had yet to be fully implemented. Was it the case that Churchill was blind to the true nature of Stalin's Russia and was seduced by his assurances of friendship, or was an opportunity, however difficult and remote, to build on the foundations of a great wartime partnership lost in the moment of victory? Posing a question in this manner overlooks the fact that there were two partners in the alliance, that neither side was blameless, suspicions and betrayals were mutual, and any policy, however shrewd and enlightened, depends for its success on the responses it meets. For all his mistakes, Churchill did well in an exceedingly difficult situation. He was neither a wanton antagonist of the Soviet Union, nor did he mindlessly appease them. He was operating with dwindling funds and diminishing returns, and like all men, however great, was powerless to alter the great decisions of history. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 17 Jun 2017 at 06:13:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00021506
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz