WW2 politics, and leading up to the War and beyond...

[Marcus]

Did you link to the Foreword? No? You insisted Harriman wrote his memoirs, but you're alluding (NOT linking) to some other location to explain why his memoirs are in the third person. It's been quite a ride, but your excuses are no longer are worth hunting down. Explain yourself, or just get used to being dismissed. Telling people to 'search' for your sources and explanations is ridiculous.

Lol ....Okay I will help you all I can, no problems...

First of all I did not insist that Harriman wrote his memoirs, I actually wrote ..."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 ..." viewtopic.php?p=2899982#p2899982 Which is on page 6 ....here https://archive.org/details/specialenvo ... ew=theater

Here is the link, towards the beginning of the foreword, page 8....I understand now, you may not have been able to find the foreword in the book...

Lol when you learn to speak English I'll be happy to read it. I stopped reading your post where I cut it above because the nonsense you write is incomprehensible. Please learn to communicate.

[Markk]

If Harriman in any sense co-wrote the passage under discussion in this thread, then it would contain a direct assertion of his absence, based on his personal knowledge. As it is, we are given agreements for the absence of "Harriman" referred to in the third person, based on various bits of evidence from his writings.

From the Foreward (only part of which is available via Markk's link): "Although I did not keep a diary, I tried whenever possible to make notes and memoranda of significant conversations ... My work at the time was so absorbing ... that many of the notes were necessarily brief ... the style and composition of this book is entirely Elie's."

Based on information provided so far, whether the portion about Harriman not attending the meeting in question has its source in Harriman's notes, his reminiscences some 30 years after the fact, or simply Elie's understanding of events based on a gap in Harriman's notes remains an open question.

LOL, a lot of ellipsis in you post. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Forward

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.

Page n8

But other activities kept getting in the way. In 1953, I started to work with Herbert Feis on my papers of the 1941-46 period. At that time I wrote extensive memoranda amplifying the hurried notes I had made earlier. When I decided to run for governor of New York in 1954, however, that collaboration had to end. Feis completed his excellent book, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin: The War They Waged and the Peace They Sought, on his own. I believe it was a major contribution, but the Feis book, under the circumstances, could not include my personal impressions and point of view.

In the intervening years I was so involved with current events, whether in government or in opposition, that I could not contemplate the degree of concentration a comprehensive book of this nature demands.

Page n8

Not until Elie Abel suggested some three years ago that we might write this book together did I feel ready at last to undertake it. I had long admired his writings— their clarity, the skill with which he assembled facts and illuminated recent history. After considerable discussion we decided to adopt the literary model devised by Henry Stimson and McGeorge Bundy in their book, On Active Service in Peace and War. Our book would be written in the third person except, of course, when it quoted from my notes, memoranda, letters, tele grams and recollections.

Page n9

Although I did not keep a diary, I tried whenever possible to make notes and memoranda of significant conversations, in addition to my telegrams and personal letters to Roosevelt, Hopkins and others. My work at the time was so absorbing, so wholly directed toward action in support of the war, that many of the notes were necessarily brief. In London, there were many late nights with Churchill, and my need to be up and doing early the next morning left hardly a moment for keeping detailed records. In Moscow, however, owing to the need for translation, there was time to make detailed notes of my talks with Stalin and other Soviet officials.

Page n9

Over the past two years, Elie Abel and I have worked closely together. To paraphrase Stimson on Bundy’s role, the style and com¬ position of this book is entirely Elie’s. He has skillfully placed my own account of events in the broader context of the war. On substance we have been in constant consultation; the analysis and the judgments expressed conform to my own. He has accurately recorded what I thought and felt at the time, together with my retrospective assessments.

[Markk]

Lol ....Okay I will help you all I can, no problems...

First of all I did not insist that Harriman wrote his memoirs, I actually wrote ..."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 ..." viewtopic.php?p=2899982#p2899982 Which is on page 6 ....here https://archive.org/details/specialenvo ... ew=theater

Here is the link, towards the beginning of the foreword, page 8....I understand now, you may not have been able to find the foreword in the book...

Lol when you learn to speak English I'll be happy to read it. I stopped reading your post where I cut it above because the nonsense you write is incomprehensible. Please learn to communicate.

LOL, I gave you the links and even put them in bold for you in some cases....I know it is hard to find a Foreword in a book for some folks, so I offered you my help and gave you a link.

Here is a little more I was hanging onto thinking you might actually do some reading on your own.... You asked why one of my original quotes was in the third person....which I had suggested a reading of the Foreword to better understand the context. If you would have simply followed my suggestion, you would have read this....bold mine.

Not until Elie Abel suggested some three years ago that we might write this book together did I feel ready at last to undertake it. I had long admired his writings— their clarity, the skill with which he assembled facts and illuminated recent history. After considerable discussion we decided to adopt the literary model devised by Henry Stimson and McGeorge Bundy in their book, On Active Service in Peace and War. Our book would be written in the third person except, of course, when it quoted from my notes, memoranda, letters, telegrams and recollections.

[Bret Ripley]

From the Foreward (only part of which is available via Markk's link): "Although I did not keep a diary, I tried whenever possible to make notes and memoranda of significant conversations ... My work at the time was so absorbing ... that many of the notes were necessarily brief ... the style and composition of this book is entirely Elie's."

Based on information provided so far, whether the portion about Harriman not attending the meeting in question has its source in Harriman's notes, his reminiscences some 30 years after the fact, or simply Elie's understanding of events based on a gap in Harriman's notes remains an open question.

LOL, a lot of ellipsis in you post. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Dude: using ellipses is not in itself shame worthy. The ellipses were for brevity, and as far as I can see Harriman's meaning has not been altered: for the most part, he did not have time to take detailed notes. If there is something I ought to be ashamed about, go ahead and spell it out and I'll take it into consideration.

[Markk]

LOL, a lot of ellipsis in you post. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Dude: using ellipses is not in itself shame worthy. The ellipses were for brevity, and as far as I can see Harriman's meaning has not been altered: for the most part, he did not have time to take detailed notes. If there is something I ought to be ashamed about, go ahead and spell it out and I'll take it into consideration.

when is changes the context, it does....it you believe what you did is a honest assessment of what he said in the foreword, then you won't get it. He said he took detailed notes in Moscow....The conference was in Moscow, with Russians and Stalin....

. In Moscow, however, owing to the need for translation, there was time to make detailed notes of my talks with Stalin and other Soviet officials

https://archive.org/details/specialenvo ... =in+moscow

Do you think Churchill took notes while negotiating?


What do you believe on the subject, was the meeting secret and between Stalin and Churchill, or do all these historians got it wrong?

[Bret Ripley]

Dude: using ellipses is not in itself shame worthy. The ellipses were for brevity, and as far as I can see Harriman's meaning has not been altered: for the most part, he did not have time to take detailed notes. If there is something I ought to be ashamed about, go ahead and spell it out and I'll take it into consideration.

when is changes the context, it does....it you believe what you did is a honest assessment of what he said in the foreword, then you won't get it. He said he took detailed notes in Moscow....The conference was in Moscow, with Russians and Stalin....

. In Moscow, however, owing to the need for translation, there was time to make detailed notes of my talks with Stalin and other Soviet officials

Ah, fairly noted. Mea culpa. Thanks.

What do you believe on the subject, was the meeting secret and between Stalin and Churchill, or do all these historians got it wrong?

I don't know if the meeting was secret, but for reasons we haven't discussed I think it fairly certain that Harriman was not present for the 'percentages note' meeting. Just for what it's worth.

[Marcus]

...I know it is hard to find a Foreword in a book for some folks, so I offered you my help ...

Lol that's what you think? You didn't offer "help" you offered nonsense. Please learn to write, and to not be so condescending. Answering a question is between two people, your bizarre sense that you are 'helping' people (by finding a Foreword, no less!!!) must be leftover from that Wasatch Front passive-aggressiveness that is so obnoxious.

[Markk]

Really? Harriman referred to himself in the third person as 'Harriman', as he recounted his personal "memoir" of an event for which you are arguing he was not present???????

Please, give links for your quotes. And, based on how this thread is going, I will be more specific. Please give a link that, when pressed, shows the exact quote you quoted.

I am enjoying reading this thread, but you need to provide links to your quotes.

That is rather noticeable, is it not? If Harriman in any sense co-wrote the passage under discussion in this thread, then it would contain a direct assertion of his absence, based on his personal knowledge. As it is, we are given agreements for the absence of "Harriman" referred to in the third person, based on various bits of evidence from his writings.

If anyone thinks I ought to try to continue this very repetitive discussion with Markk, please let me know and I shall do my best to find the energy.

You also didn't read the foreword either where he states the book is written in the third person by design.

Not until Elie Abel suggested some three years ago that we might write this book together did I feel ready at last to undertake it. I had long admired his writings— their clarity, the skill with which he assembled facts and illuminated recent history. After considerable discussion we decided to adopt the literary model devised by Henry Stimson and McGeorge Bundy in their book, On Active Service in Peace and War. Our book would be written in the third person except, of course, when it quoted from my notes, memoranda, letters, telegrams and recollections.

[Markk]

...I know it is hard to find a Foreword in a book for some folks, so I offered you my help ...

Lol that's what you think? You didn't offer "help" you offered nonsense. Please learn to write, and to not be so condescending. Answering a question is between two people, your bizarre sense that you are 'helping' people (by finding a Foreword, no less!!!) must be leftover from that Wasatch Front passive-aggressiveness that is so obnoxious.

I quoted a foreword and suggested it be read for full context. I said the link was in a previous post.

Markk: 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."

viewtopic.php?p=2899982#p2899982


I think the problem might be you aren't even trying....your mind is made up.

[Bret Ripley]

Our book would be written in the third person except, of course, when it quoted from my notes, memoranda, letters, telegrams and recollections.[/i]

The mention of Harriman not being present at the meeting is in the third person, indicating it is not quoting from Harriman's notes. I happen to think the information is accurate but will remind you that Chap requested a "contemporary source" -- I'm not sure we have that, here.