Alan Judd

Were the Arctic convoy sacrifices worth it?

Stalin privately admitted that his army could never have triumphed without western aid, and the convoys also indirectly helped the war in the Atlantic – but the loss of life was horrendous

HMS Eskimo, a Tribal-class destroyer, on Arctic convoy duty. [Crown/Mirrorpix via Getty Images] 
issue 09 November 2024

You need only mild interest in the second world war to be aware of the Arctic convoys of 1941-45, escorted by the Royal Navy through savage weather and unimaginable cold to deliver supplies to Russia. Their purpose was to keep Russia in the war; the conditions were such that storms could last nine days, blowing ships hundreds of miles apart and playing havoc with communications. That’s not to mention enemy action by submarine, air attack and large surface raiders such as the Tirpitz and Scharnhorst. Some 4.5 million tons of aid were delivered at the expense of 119 ships and 2,763 lives lost.  Was it worth it?

Opinion at the time was divided. Some maintained that there was no point in diverting scarce resources to Russia following the German invasion because it would soon either collapse or reach a separate peace deal. Others argued that the point was political, a gesture to keep Russia in the fight because, with its vast resources and willingness to incur any number of casualties, it would eventually prevail unaided.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in