He did not write it himself, in fact he had a team of writers. It seems you are guilty of what you accused me of. It is best in my opinion to let the history fall were it falls, instead of trying to force a preconceived ideology in to it.Chap wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 3:11 pmI don't think our discussion on this point is of vivid interest to other readers of this board, but just in case ...
Students of history are taught at an early stage that the first thing to do when faced with a historical source relevant to a topic you are studying is to ask what kind of thing your source is, and what the basis of your source's statements are. For example, is the person who wrote the source a first-hand witness of the events described, do they have a reason for misrepresenting what took place, and so on. I quoted at length from Churchill's memoirs, which he wrote himself and which contain long first person statements about what he did, who he met, and who he talked to, as well as long quotations from documents he sent or received from others. Please note that I am not saying here that everything Churchill wrote is always a full and reliable account of events - nor do I say it is not. I am just saying what kind of source Churchill's memoirs are.
When you say "Harriman claimed otherwise in his memoirs", that gives a misleading impression of the book you are quoting, Special envoy to Churchill and Stalin, 1941-1946, published in 1075 by Random House, written by Elie Abel. The cover blurb says:
The book is not written by Harriman himself, although it frequently quotes words he wrote and statements he made. It is therefore not the same kind of source as Churchill's memoirs. It is a mistake of historical method to treat it in the same way. Please note that I am not saying here that nothing Elie Abell wrote is a full and true account of events. I am just saying pointing out that it is a different kind of source.This masterful narrative, written by Elie Abel and based on Averall Harriman's personal recollections as well as his voluminous and revealing private papers, re-creates and explains the climate in which many of the most important strategic and political decisions were made during World War II, and casts new light on the motivations and personalities of the leaders who made them.
On your specific point, Abell does not quote any statement by Harriman saying that, contrary to Churchill's account, he was not present at the meeting with Stalin when the 'percentages' paper was scribbled. The content of your claim is therefore essentially untrue. What Abell does do is to argue that documents written by Harriman suggest that he may not have been present when Churchill said he was. That is a very different matter from Harriman directly contradicting what Churchill said.
My emphasis on this post is on how trained historians write. I am personally not very interested in whether Harriman was present or not. But if you are going to do source-based historical argument, it is important to do it right.
After a quick google....Churchill's 6 postwar books were written by a team of writers call the "syndicate." Among them were researchers, military officers, and I assume writers. Helpers included William Deakin, Hastings Ismay, Henry Pownall, and Commodore Gordon Allen.
Did Churchill read, edit, and approve what was written, sure, as I am sure Harriman did, in fact the title of his memoir reads written by Harriman "and" Abel.
I suggest you read his Forward in his book, which I linked earlier. The fist paragraph reads....
"This book has been thirty years in the making. I have long felt an obligation to record my experiences, observations and assessments of the World War II period. More than any other American, I had both a close personal association with Winston Churchill and intimate dealings with Josef Stalin. Of course, I had known Franklin Roosevelt since my childhood."
In Churchill's forward to the book you quoted...which I have a electronic version of, which by the way is free to download via Kindle unlimited reads....
" I must again acknowledge the assistance of those who helped me with the previous [5] volumes, namely, Lieutenant-General Sir Henry Pownall, Commodore G. R. G. Allen, Colonel F. W. Deakin, the late Sir Edward Marsh, Mr. Denis Kelly, and Mr. C. C. Wood. I have also to thank the very large number of others who have kindly read these pages and commented upon them. I am obliged to Air Chief Marshal Sir Guy Garrod for his help in presenting the Air aspect. Lord Ismay has continued to give me his aid, as have my other friends.
Churchill, Winston S.. Triumph and Tragedy (Winston S. Churchill The Second World War) (p. 5). RosettaBooks. Kindle Edition. "
You can believe what you want, but there has been a lot written on the 4th Moscow conference, and the conclusion is that Harriman was not there in this specific session. And even if he were, it does not change that Roosevelt was not there when Churchill penned the percentage slip of paper and handed it to Stalin, or does it change the rightful concerns and realities of the future postwar realities that Britain will have to deal with.
Harriman wrote in his memoirs....
..." The same guilty impulse that prompted Churchill to suggest burning the paper a few minutes after writing down the percentages doubtless led him not to tell Harriman of his strange bargain with Stalin, except in bits and pieces, spaced over several days. On October 10, for example, unaware that the question had been decided, Harriman reported to Roosevelt: “On matters in the Balkans, Churchill and Eden will try to work out some sort of spheres of influence with the Russians, the British to have a free hand in Greece and the Russians in Rumania and perhaps other countries. The British will attempt to retrieve a position of equal influence in Yugoslavia. They can probably succeed in the former but I am doubtful about the latter objective.” In a joint message to Roosevelt the same day, Churchill and Stalin said no more than: “We have to consider the best way of reaching an agreed policy about the Balkan countries including Hungary and Turkey. ...”
Again there is a lot written on this ....I was also reading how Churchill told Stalin theu should burn the note and Stalin said "no."
The check mark was Stalin's, with his agreement, at least at that time. Roosevelt apparently was no happy with all of it and had not agreed with it.