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

[Markk]

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.

It is a given history that the meeting was "secret." Meaning Britain and Russia alone, no US representation. There is a lot written about it.

The larger point I was making is that Churchill, whom I respect and he was the Lion, was very concerned for Britain. He knew Britain would never again be the World power it was before the war, and was trying to protect Britain's interests that remained, and against the Soviets if the kept going west.

[Bret Ripley]

Ah, fairly noted. Mea culpa. Thanks.

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.

It is a given history that the meeting was "secret."

"Given history"?

Meaning Britain and Russia alone, no US representation.

That is not what 'secret' means, but never mind.

There is a lot written about it.

Yes, I know. That's what I meant when I mentioned 'reasons we haven't discussed.'

The larger point I was making is that Churchill, whom I respect and he was the Lion, was very concerned for Britain. He knew Britain would never again be the World power it was before the war, and was trying to protect Britain's interests that remained, and against the Soviets if the kept going west.

Umm, OK. Do you think anyone disagrees with that?

[Markk]

It is a given history that the meeting was "secret."

"Given history"?

Meaning Britain and Russia alone, no US representation.

That is not what 'secret' means, but never mind.

There is a lot written about it.

Yes, I know. That's what I meant when I mentioned 'reasons we haven't discussed.'

The larger point I was making is that Churchill, whom I respect and he was the Lion, was very concerned for Britain. He knew Britain would never again be the World power it was before the war, and was trying to protect Britain's interests that remained, and against the Soviets if the kept going west.

Umm, OK. Do you think anyone disagrees with that?

Yes, there are people that disagree fully or in part. Cooper disagreed about Churchill and his motives as did many Brit's after the war, voting him out of office. Some saw his motives as being too much of a imperialist, which has a lot of truth to it.

I put "secret" in quotes for a reason. It is referred to as "secret" given the imperialistic undertones of the meeting. I am quite sure that countries like Greece and Bulgaria would not have appreciated Churchill dividing the control of their countries up on a piece of scrap paper....not to mention with the tyrannical psychopathic dictator Stalin. I think if we look at the history, these countries wanted their independence, and not being divided up like two people playing a game of risk.

As I mentioned earlier it was reported that Churchill wanted to burn the slip of paper, assumably for those undertones.

The moment was apt for business, so I said, “Let us settle about our affairs in the Balkans. Your armies are in Roumania and Bulgaria. We have interests, missions, and agents there. Don’t let us get at cross-purposes in small ways. So far as Britain and Russia are concerned, how would it do for you to have ninety per cent. predominance in Roumania, for us to have ninety per cent. of the say in Greece, and go fifty-fifty about Yugoslavia?” While this was being translated I wrote out on a half-sheet of paper:

Roumania Russia 90%

The others 10% Greece Great Britain(in accord with U.S.A.)

90% Russia 10% Yugoslavia 50–50%

Hungary 50–50%

Bulgaria Russia 75%

The others 25%

I pushed this across to Stalin, who had by then heard the translation. There was a slight pause. Then he took his blue pencil and made a large tick upon it, and passed it back to us. It was all settled in no more time than it takes to set down. Of course we had long and anxiously considered our point, and were only dealing with immediate war-time arrangements. All larger questions were reserved on both sides for what we then hoped would be a peace table when the war was won. After this there was a long silence. The pencilled paper lay in the centre of the table. At length I said, “Might it not be thought rather cynical if it seemed we had disposed of these issues, so fateful to millions of people, in such an offhand manner? Let us burn the paper.” “No, you keep it,” said Stalin.

Churchill, Winston S.. Triumph and Tragedy (Winston S. Churchill The Second World War) (pp. 247-248). RosettaBooks. Kindle Edition. or

https://archive.org/details/specialenvo ... 1up?q=Burn

Chap disagrees, I think, for other reasons. He is very defensive about the US's role in regard to the war, pre, present, and post. Although I am not sure why, other that a emotional one. maybe he will explain and correct me.

[Morley]

Chap disagrees, I think, for other reasons. He is very defensive about the US's role in regard to the war, pre, present, and post. Although I am not sure why, other that a emotional one. maybe he will explain and correct me.

Markk, it's sad that you think that when Chap points out that you're wrong, that he must be acting primarily out of defensiveness.

[Markk]

Chap disagrees, I think, for other reasons. He is very defensive about the US's role in regard to the war, pre, present, and post. Although I am not sure why, other that a emotional one. maybe he will explain and correct me.

Markk, it's sad that you think that when Chap points out that you're wrong, that he must be acting primarily out of defensiveness.

Did you read his responses? They were defensive as were yours. Dilly Dallying is the Phrase I believed you used. If he believes that Britain could have taken back Europe on their own, without US and Russian support, he can certainly explain why. I gave both he and you scenarios and one reply was to your suggestion.

It is natural to have emotional bias, in regard to it being, well, natural....we all do it.

[Morley]

Markk, it's sad that you think that when Chap points out that you're wrong, that he must be acting primarily out of defensiveness.

Did you read his responses? They were defensive as were yours. Dilly Dallying is the Phrase I believed you used. If he believes that Britain could have taken back Europe on their own, without US and Russian support, he can certainly explain why. I gave both he and you scenarios and one reply was to your suggestion.

It is natural to have emotional bias, in regard to it being, well, natural....we all do it.

Yes, I read his responses. I thought they were pretty on target. Yes, I believe I said I thought the US was “dilly dallying”. Not sure how that’s either defensive or debatable. Why would I be defensive about that?

If you think everyone responding to you is doing so out of defensiveness, you’re being tone deaf. It’s almost as if, since you couldn’t show that Cooper and Carlson had any significant contribution to make to the discussion about WWII history, that you’re trying to change the subject and pick a fight. Meh, I’m not interested.

[Chap]

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.

The text of the book in question makes no mention of any writing or verbal statement by Harriman to the effect that he was not present. The writer bases his claim on reasoning from other documents that do not refer directly him being present at or absent from the meeting.