PDF Summary:The Stalin Affair, by Giles Milton

The Stalin Affair by Giles Milton provides an inside look at the wartime alliance between the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union in their shared fight against Nazi Germany. The book explores the uneasy and fragile relationship between the three nations, marked by mutual suspicion, ideological differences, and conflicting visions for the post-war global order.

It highlights the crucial roles of figures like Averell Harriman and Clark Kerr in negotiating with Joseph Stalin and managing the delicate dynamics between the allies. The book also examines the vital US aid to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program and the subsequent disagreements that emerged, ultimately leading to the collapse of the alliance and the onset of the Cold War.

(continued)...

The tension was clearly visible during the 1945 Yalta Conference. Roosevelt, upon reaching Crimea, opted to postpone his one-on-one discussion with Churchill until the conference had been in session for five days, a choice that unmistakably signaled his desire to first strengthen his relationship with Stalin. Throughout the conference, the president's private conversations with Stalin revealed a persistent doubt about British policies, which diminished the influence of the British delegates. The author highlights Averell's growing unease upon witnessing Roosevelt's crude tactics, which he believed were inadvertently strengthening the Soviet leader's influence.

Other Perspectives

• While Averell Harriman played a role in facilitating communication, it could be argued that the geopolitical necessities of the war itself were a more significant factor in driving the communication between Churchill and Stalin.
• The fluctuating views of Stalin might not have been the sole barrier to a genuine connection; Churchill's own imperialistic views and the vast ideological differences between the UK and the USSR could also have contributed significantly.
• It's possible to argue that Churchill's influence on Stalin was not as limited as suggested; their interactions may have had more subtle impacts on the decisions and policies adopted by the Soviet Union, even if not immediately apparent.
• Roosevelt's belief in his personal charisma might have been more strategic than naive, as personal relationships were an essential part of diplomacy, and his approach could be seen as an attempt to balance power dynamics among the Allied leaders.
• The idea that Roosevelt aimed to reduce the perception of his close ties with Churchill could be seen as an oversimplification; his actions might also reflect a complex strategy to maintain a balance of power between the Allies and ensure U.S. interests were met in the post-war world.
• Roosevelt's actions at the Yalta Conference could be interpreted not as a snub to Churchill but as a pragmatic approach to dealing with Stalin, who was in a position to significantly influence the post-war order in Eastern Europe and Asia.

The provision of vital resources and support from America was crucial in sustaining the combat endeavors of the Soviet Union, which in turn heightened tensions.

This section explores the pivotal part the United States had in ensuring the Soviet Union remained actively engaged in the conflict. Milton delves into the comprehensive organizational undertakings that bolstered the Lend-Lease program, along with the intrinsic difficulties that arose from skepticism and unpredictability. He details Averell Harriman's crucial involvement in managing these shipments and describes his efforts to manage the escalating solicitations for support from Stalin that were coming to the United States.

The provision of armaments, equipment, and essential materials through the Lend-Lease program was vital to the Soviet Union's capacity to withstand the aggressive onslaught of the Nazi military.

The author suggests that the endurance of the Soviet Union during the war was significantly reliant on the resources supplied by the United States via the Lend-Lease program. The emergence of hostilities exposed the critical need for significant reinforcement of the industrial infrastructure in the USSR, as key production facilities in the west were devastated and the difficulties of maintaining a war effort became apparent, emphasizing the need to stop the advance of the Nazis. The movement of critical armaments, supplies, and key resources, which exceeded what the Soviet Union produced, took place via hazardous pathways, representing a logistical effort of unprecedented scale. Averell Harriman played a pivotal role in managing the distribution of aid, which was crucial for strengthening the Soviet Union's war efforts.

The vast challenges and intricate issues in sustaining these supplies, especially the perilous journey through the Arctic, were considerable.

The author skillfully depicts the vast scale and intricate logistical challenges of delivering aid to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program. The team led by Harriman faced considerable obstacles while moving large amounts of resources across vast distances, battling against enemy forces and coping with unpredictable weather conditions. The Arctic convoys en route to Murmansk and Archangel faced perilous conditions, constantly threatened by attacks from German submarines and persistent air strikes from the Luftwaffe. The perilous passage across icy and often stormy seas highlighted the fragility of the crucial lifeline essential for supporting the Soviet Union's war efforts.

Stalin's increasing demands for additional assistance from the United States, along with the challenges that Western countries faced in meeting these demands,

As the conflict continued, Stalin's requests for assistance from America became more urgent. Stalin's determination to defeat the Nazis and secure post-war supremacy was highlighted by his demand for an unyielding and increasing flow of armaments, gear, and provisions destined for the Soviet Union. Harriman, caught between fulfilling these requests and managing the limitations of American production and transport capabilities, faced challenging diplomatic negotiations, struggling to balance the persistent demands from the leader of the USSR, Churchill's anxieties about diverting resources from the Western front, and Roosevelt's naive belief that boundless generosity could foster trust.

Contentions and grievances emerged regarding the distribution of aid provided by the Lend-Lease initiative.

Milton depicts how the Lend-Lease program's allocation of aid frequently led to tensions within the Allied nations, with Stalin asserting that the Western powers deliberately withheld or redirected essential resources for their own benefit. The Soviet Union's leader often viewed actions from the West with suspicion, which led to grave allegations and the risk of cutting off diplomatic relations with the alliance. Harriman, tasked with fulfilling the demands of the Soviet leader while maintaining the delicate alliance, worked tirelessly as an intermediary and messenger, endeavoring to meet the needs of a persistently skeptical and exacting ruler.

The Soviet Union leveled accusations that the West either withheld or redirected essential supplies for its own benefit.

Stalin leveled accusations against the Western Allies, asserting that they deliberately held back supplies for their own benefit, particularly during periods when they faced challenges in their clashes with the forces to the east. Stalin's anger was aimed at Churchill and Roosevelt, accusing them of prioritizing their military needs as the casualties of the Arctic convoys mounted, putting at risk the delivery of vital weapons and supplies. The partnership collapsed due to a mix of ideological differences and a deep-seated lack of trust. The author highlights the challenges of engaging with a leader whose outlook was shaped by deep-seated suspicion, an ever-present sense of threat, and a strong belief in the hostility of Western nations.

Churchill focused on tempering Stalin's expectations and managing his appeals for assistance originating from the United States.

Churchill, understanding the critical nature of American backing and Stalin's mercurial disposition, was instrumental in molding the Soviet leader's expectations regarding this support. Churchill worked diligently to balance the persistent demands for more aid from Stalin with the actual constraints, resource availability, and strategic goals of the Western Allies in a complex diplomatic environment. He understood the dangerous consequences that might ensue if he alienated Stalin, especially in the early phases of the conflict when the outcome was yet to be determined. He sought to appease Stalin and ensure that other conflict zones were sufficiently resourced, simultaneously safeguarding the strategic priorities of the UK and the US.

Other Perspectives

• The Soviet Union had significant industrial and military capabilities of its own and was not solely dependent on the United States for resources and support.
• The Lend-Lease program, while helpful, was not the only factor that enabled the Soviet Union to withstand the Nazi onslaught; Soviet resilience, strategy, and sacrifice were also key.
• The role of Averell Harriman, though important, was one among many efforts by Allied leaders and diplomats, and the success of the Lend-Lease program was a collective achievement.
• The Arctic convoys were perilous, but the Soviet Union also received supplies through other routes, such as the Persian Corridor, which were less hazardous.
• Stalin's demands for assistance were part of a broader strategy to maximize the Soviet Union's position both during and after the war, and not merely a reflection of immediate military necessity.
• The grievances over Lend-Lease distribution sometimes stemmed from the Soviet Union's own logistical challenges and internal issues, which complicated the effective use of aid.
• Accusations of the West withholding supplies must be contextualized within the broader strategic considerations and logistical constraints faced by the Allies, rather than being seen solely as acts of bad faith.
• Churchill's management of Stalin's expectations was a delicate balancing act that involved not just appeasement but also firm stances on strategic decisions, which sometimes led to tensions within the alliance.

Archibald Clark Kerr and Averell Harriman played crucial roles in navigating the intricate dynamics of the alliance.

This section highlights the crucial role that intermediaries played in maintaining the alliance established throughout the conflict. Milton emphasizes the adept orchestration and oversight of diverse requirements and attitudes within the Lend-Lease program by Harriman. He also emphasizes Archie Clark Kerr's remarkable talent in establishing a pivotal personal rapport essential for the successful coordination of the alliance with Stalin.

Harriman acted as the main intermediary from the United States, collaborating intimately with Churchill and Stalin.

The author portrays Averell Harriman as a pivotal, though often disillusioned, player in navigating the complex interactions between the key allied nations. Harriman, a proficient entrepreneur with immediate access to President Roosevelt, was suddenly at the heart of wartime negotiations, charged with managing the delivery of Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union and fostering a functional alliance among the leaders of Britain and the Soviet Union. Navigating the intricate and explosive temperament of Stalin, alongside Churchill's worries about resource distribution across various battlefronts, and Roosevelt's firm belief in the power of direct diplomacy to reconcile divergent beliefs, constituted the delicate task he was tasked with.

Harriman was tasked with overseeing the provision of Lend-Lease aid while maintaining the fragile coalition among the UK, the US, and the Soviet Union.

Harriman, who was based in London, quickly grasped the importance of support from the United States and oversaw its allocation to Britain by directing the Lend-Lease program. He subsequently cemented his crucial role within the alliance when Roosevelt appointed him as the representative for a series of important negotiations with the British and Soviet leaders. In the course of these negotiations, he sought to satisfy Stalin's continuous demands for more weapons and supplies, while also taking into account the tactical needs of the Western Allies.

Harriman's growing disenchantment with Stalin's ambitions became more profound, and he showed a willingness to directly challenge Stalin.

As the war went on, Harriman grew increasingly disillusioned with the goals Stalin pursued. The unyielding quest by Stalin to expand his territory and power across Eastern Europe highlighted the stark contrast between the ambitions of the Soviet Union and the Western aspirations for democracy following the conflict. He frequently expressed his concerns to President Roosevelt about the ambitions of the Soviet leader, urging a firmer approach. At a charged press conference in San Francisco in 1945, he vociferously denounced Stalin and predicted the emergence of the Soviet Union as a dominant power exerting its influence worldwide.

Clark Kerr set himself apart from those who came before him by skillfully establishing a robust rapport with Stalin, utilizing his diplomatic acumen.

Milton depicts Archie Clark Kerr as an expert in unconventional diplomatic strategies, which were particularly effective in dealings with individuals like Stalin. Sir Stafford Cripps, in his role as the British ambassador to the Soviet Union, displayed genuine intentions but lacked diplomatic finesse, while his counterpart brought a sense of charming humor and a welcoming presence to the position. He rapidly grasped that nurturing personal relationships was essential for navigating the complexities of the alliance and developed an unexpectedly cordial relationship with the Soviet Union's head.

Clark Kerr managed to build a relationship of trust and understanding with the Soviet leader, despite their significantly divergent perspectives.

Clark Kerr, despite the stark contrast in their political beliefs and individual backgrounds, managed to forge a genuine rapport with Stalin, which was essential for the effective coordination of the alliance. Clark Kerr, known for his astute assessments of people, adeptly navigated the capricious temperaments of the Soviet leader through the use of humor, sharing personal anecdotes, and engaging in shared interests to establish a connection. Churchill's and Stalin's fundamental connection was pivotal in enabling dialogue during their important meetings in Moscow.

Clark Kerr emphasized the importance of Western countries maintaining alertness towards the enduring objectives of the Soviet leader and to take a more resolute stance.

The writer highlights Clark Kerr's astute understanding of the Soviet leader's ultimate objectives as he successfully established a collaborative relationship with Stalin. As Clark Kerr witnessed the expansion of Communist control across Eastern Europe, he became deeply concerned, recognizing that the Soviet Union's objectives were in direct conflict with the Western Allies' hopes for establishing democratic rule post-war. He authored multiple dispatches expressing his apprehensions and suggested that London should respond with caution to the overtures from Stalin, while simultaneously advocating for a firmer stance based on consolidated strength.

Other Perspectives

• While Archibald Clark Kerr and Averell Harriman played significant roles, it could be argued that there were other figures within the alliance whose contributions were equally crucial but perhaps less visible or well-documented.
• The effectiveness of Harriman's role as an intermediary might be critiqued on the grounds that the alliance was often strained and that his direct approach sometimes led to increased tensions.
• The success of the Lend-Lease program and the maintenance of the coalition could be attributed to a broader group of individuals and systemic factors, rather than Harriman's oversight alone.
• Harriman's disenchantment with Stalin and his willingness to challenge the Soviet leader might be viewed as a reflection of the prevailing U.S. government stance, rather than a personal transformation, thus questioning the extent of his personal influence.
• Clark Kerr's rapport with Stalin, while notable, might be seen as just one factor among many in the complex interactions between the UK and the Soviet Union, and his personal diplomacy might have had limited impact on broader strategic decisions.
• The trust and understanding that Clark Kerr built with Stalin could be critiqued as being less influential in the grand scheme of wartime diplomacy, where national interests often trumped personal relationships.
• Clark Kerr's emphasis on the importance of Western alertness and a resolute stance towards the Soviet Union could be seen as indicative of a broader Western skepticism of Soviet intentions, rather than a unique insight on his part.

The alliance established by the United Kingdom and the United States significantly shaped the international scene following the conflict.

This section of the narrative explores how the partnership between the United States and the United Kingdom evolved as they jointly endeavored to forge an agreement on the global structure following the conflict. Milton highlights their accomplishments, notably in establishing the United Nations, and their subsequent failure to preserve the cooperative spirit that was present during the time of conflict.

Churchill and Roosevelt collaborated to sculpt the international structure that would govern the era following the war, which encompassed the establishment of the United Nations.

Following the end of World War II, Roosevelt, along with Churchill, played a pivotal role in shaping a new world order. They were motivated by the aspiration to avert worldwide disputes going forward, with a vision for a world founded on international collaboration, democratic values, and a shared dedication to preserving peace. The UN, an international entity established to shape this dream, bore the responsibility of preventing future conflicts and aiding in the settlement of disputes among nations.

Roosevelt showed a greater tendency to accommodate the Soviet Union's demands, despite the divergence in their viewpoints and objectives.

Roosevelt and Churchill frequently had divergent views on collaborating with the Soviet Union as they sought to establish a new global framework. Aware of the ambitions harbored by the Soviet leader, Churchill advocated for a firmer stance, encouraging unity among Western countries rather than a policy inclined towards concession and appeasement. Roosevelt, motivated by idealism and confident in his persuasive skills, frequently adopted a strategy of making concessions, believing that these compromises could be used to gain Soviet cooperation. The differences in their outlooks and characters were bound to have substantial consequences as time went on.

The fate of Poland and Germany's post-war status were sources of contention.

The growing discord over the future course for Poland and Germany was highlighted by the differing viewpoints of Roosevelt and Churchill. Churchill, committed to restoring a strong and independent Poland, perceived Roosevelt's willingness to acquiesce to Stalin's demands as a betrayal that endangered Poland's independence and the equilibrium of power in Europe post-war. Conflicts of a comparable kind likewise surfaced regarding the issue of Germany. Churchill approached the idea of dismantling the nation with caution, concerned that it could create circumstances beneficial to the Soviet Union, whereas Roosevelt was more receptive to the idea, placing greater trust in Stalin's promises of democratic elections.

Churchill's announcement of an "Iron Curtain" marked the beginning of the Cold War and led to a strong response from Stalin, indicating the collapse of the wartime alliance.

Milton describes how the alliance that was established during the war eroded, leading to an escalation into Cold War hostility, a story that is interwoven with the inability of the key Allied leaders to bridge the gap between their ideological disparities and strategic disagreements. The author highlights how Churchill's 1946 oration, famously dubbed the "Iron Curtain" speech, shaped the evolving global landscape and elicited a hostile response from the Soviet Union's head, further exacerbating the rift.

The unity that the major allied leaders maintained during the war was not sustained as ideological and geopolitical rivalries emerged anew.

Milton suggests that the alliance established to triumph over Nazi Germany was crucial but unsustainable over an extended period. The inherent tensions between Communism and democratic values, coupled with competing ambitions for establishing postwar dominance, proved insurmountable. Once the shared adversary was defeated, the inherent rifts within the alliance resurfaced. Although the alliance began with a shared sense of camaraderie, underscored by hopeful declarations of unity and attempts to bridge disagreements, the conflicting ideologies and competing goals regarding the structure of world power ultimately resulted in its collapse.

The lasting impact on the international structure post-conflict stemmed from the collapse of the major wartime coalition.

The disintegration of the wartime alliance had a profound impact on the establishment of the new global geopolitical framework. The emergence of a bloc of Eastern European nations under Soviet sway precipitated a major geopolitical division, igniting enduring strains throughout the Cold War era and an arms race that teetered on the brink of nuclear disaster. The author suggests that the roots of the division were established during earlier times of strife, long before occurrences such as Averell Harriman's public briefing in San Francisco, considering that the main Allied leaders had fundamental disagreements over the future course of Europe after the war.

Other Perspectives

• The role of other Allied nations, such as the Soviet Union, France, and China, in shaping the post-war international scene is not fully acknowledged, suggesting an Anglo-American centrism.
• The establishment of the United Nations was a collective effort involving many nations, and the roles of smaller countries and other key figures beyond Churchill and Roosevelt are not highlighted.
• The complexity of Roosevelt's diplomacy with the Soviet Union might be oversimplified; his concessions were part of a broader strategy that also included pressures and negotiations.
• The portrayal of Churchill's stance on Poland and Germany may not fully account for the geopolitical realities and the influence of the Soviet military presence in Eastern Europe.
• The "Iron Curtain" speech's role in marking the beginning of the Cold War could be contested, as tensions and ideological differences were evident before the speech.
• The idea that the wartime alliance was unsustainable might overlook the potential for continued cooperation under different leadership or international circumstances.
• The assertion that the collapse of the wartime coalition had a lasting impact on the international structure could be nuanced by considering the role of subsequent events and policies during the early Cold War period.