Man, the World War II Allies were mis-named. Is there le mot just for “three scorpions in a bottle”? From re-reading even perpetually sunny Churchill’s account they got along better when they were losing than when victory was in sight. The U.S. and Soviet Union stayed out and watched all of Europe become Nazi. Britain would have too if Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor hadn’t occurred. Uncle Adolph and Hirohito—What were they fucking thinking?—birthed the three-headed mutant. Churchill’s resentment at the Soviets for the Non-Aggression Pact is palpable in The Second World War and of course completely with cause. Then to have Uncle Joe cry crocodile tears that Britain wasn’t aiding him enough. Churchill goes to great pains to write and attempt to demonstrate that he gave as much aid as he could but in my readings over the years of his volumes I have never been convinced. Stalin’s harshest words were reserved for Churchill and Great Britain. Stalin and FDR were closer—which is unforgivable. No, no moral crusade was this. The three were thrown in the bottle together of necessity. Was it necessity?

War seems to require post-mortem “What if’s?” So: Churchill immediately made league with the Soviet Union on Barbarossa. Immediately. That would not have been Uncle Ben’s immediate instinct, hooo doggie. Why was that necessary? I have never been convinced.

What if?: With an Eastern Front opened could Britain have ultimately defeated a distracted Hitler? I don’t remember Churchill specifically writing on that. He did not see Barbarossa as God’s gift Britain as he did Pearl. Barbarossa opened up a second front for Churchill too. Why didn’t Churchill demand Stalin aid Britain in return for Britain aiding Stalin? That one’s easier to answer but is it sufficient answer? Stalin could not. He was fighting for his life. Stalin had nothing to spare. Britain had at least survived the blitz. Could Britain spare materiel? Sheesh. Churchill writes that if Goering hadn’t inexplicably re-directed the Luftwaffe Britain was about on its knees. He writes that if Dönitz hadn’t inexplicably cut back on the Atlantic U-boat war Britain would likely have been sunk too. Britain had nothing to spare either. Why then did Churchill spare it?

The greatest “what if?” of course is what if Barbarossa had occurred and Pearl not? Would Roosevelt have stayed out? He certainly would have. He did! FDR didn’t enter the war until Japan and Nazi Germany declared war on the U.S. Why then was there necessity for an alliance at all? You, Britain, fight Hitler on your front. You, Stalin, fight Hitler on your front. We, the U.S., will fight Hitler alongside Britain on the common eastern front but you two hail fellows well-met can take care of Hits pretty much on your own, can’t you? We Amerks will take care of our main front, the Pacific against Japan. 

Why did Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor make necessary a three-party alliance? Couldn’t Churchill and Roosevelt have fiddled while Berlin and Moscow burned as Stalin fiddled while London burned? Why didn't the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact moot any consideration of the Soviets as ally in the fight against Hitler? Stalin could not believe his luck, literally could not believe it; accused Churchill and Roosevelt of working a secret separate peace with Hitler in 1944; thought, "That's what I did! Why wouldn't they do the same thing to me?" Stalin's double-dealing instead was rewarded by Churchill and Roosevelt--Stalin got the "secret codicil" of the Non-Aggression Pact from Churchill and Roosevelt! Triumph and Tragedy is title for Churchill’s sixth volume. The tragedy was Soviet re-enslavement of eastern Europe, condoned by the Allies at Yalta, and the Cold War. No alliance, no Triumph and Tragedy. The Soviet Union was the biggest victor of World War II. They supplanted Britain as a Great Power. That was a tragedy.