The 70th Anniversary of the Meeting on the Elbe: Lessons From the Russian-U.S. Alliance and Cooperation

Thanks to Dmitri Trenin and thanks to the Carnegie Moscow Center for inviting us all here today to help open this important conference. For many years, Carnegie has helped, as you all know, both of our countries to better understand each other, and today, more than ever, that better understanding remains a critical goal.

I’m also happy to join you in marking the 70th anniversary of the historic meeting of American and Soviet forces at the town of Torgau on the Elbe River. That meeting had little military significance, but it had tremendous, lasting, symbolic importance. Its legacy has endured for seven decades.

Even though the political and economic systems of the United States and the Soviet Union were worlds apart during the Second World War, we were still able to cooperate in those years to achieve a greater good — the defeat of Nazi Germany. And, even though our relations later chilled during the Cold War, Moscow and Washington were able to avoid a direct conflict during a half-century of geopolitical tension.

As we face the tensions today, which Vladimir Petrovich described, on a number of issues, it’s really valuable, I think, to discuss the legacy of Torgau and the Allied victory over Nazi Germany. In America, we have not forgotten that legacy: In the White House’s Map Room today there is what is called a “war situation map” that was prepared for President Franklin D. Roosevelt on April 3, 1945 — nine days before he died, and a mere three weeks before the events at Torgau.

It was a tragedy that FDR himself did not live to celebrate the Torgau meeting — or the ultimate Allied victory over the Nazis two weeks later. But V-E Day, as we call it, lives on in the memories of many of us whose fathers and grandfathers fought valiantly in World War II.

Both my father and my wife’s father fought on the European front. My dad was in the Army Air Force in North Africa and Italy. My wife Mariella’s dad served in France in the wake of the Allied D-Day invasion. They were part of what we Americans call “the Greatest Generation,” and their experiences in that war changed their lives and the lives of their families forever. One of my proudest possessions is my father’s Army hat from the Second World War, which is a key part of my hat collection which some of you may know about or have seen.

My wife Mariella and I honor the memory of our fathers and their bravery in that war. And, having served as ambassador in Russia and in three former Soviet states, I am acutely aware — and I have deep respect for — the tremendous sacrifices made by the Russian people and by others in this region during the Great Patriotic War.

Former Ambassador John Beyrle, who will be speaking to you shortly, knows as much as any American about the sacrifices of the Soviet people, because his father, Joseph, was one of the few soldiers — maybe the only soldier — who fought for both the American Army and the Red Army. He was a true hero for all of us.

And so were the soldiers from the U.S. Army 69th Infantry Division and the Soviet 58th Guards Rifle Division who met the Elbe in April of 1945 and enjoyed what some have come to call “the spirit of Torgau.” They shared souvenir dollars and rubles, compared rations, smoked cigarettes together, and toasted one another with “liberated” beer.

One of our Embassy’s distinguished former military attaches, retired General Greg Govan, recently wrote of the Torgau soldiers, and here I’m quoting: “They reached across a broken bridge over a dangerous river to clasp hands in joy at their survival and the success they had in a common cause. The spirit of Torgau is a reminder, for all of us, of mutual hopes in the midst of grim realities.”

Ladies and gentlemen, I hope that today’s discussions reflect on that spirit of April and May 1945, on the history of our relations since Torgau, and on the prospects for, hopefully, better future cooperation in a variety of areas of mutual interest.

Thank you very much.

There is an iconic photo from the meeting on the Elbe. It is a picture of American Lieutenant William Robertson and Soviet Lieutenant Alexander Silvashko with their arms around each other, smiling, in front of their national flags. The picture of Robertson and Silvashko was taken on April 26th, the day after the meeting. It is a picture that has come to symbolize the meeting on the Elbe. But that picture is not my favorite picture of the meeting on the Elbe.

IMGXYZ26310IMGZYX

My favorite picture is one taken by American Private Paul Staub on 25 April — a picture of the meeting as it was actually happening. In Private Staub’s photo we see that when the American and Soviet patrols got to Torgau they found the bridge over the Elbe destroyed by the German troops. The bridge was a twisted mass of steel and wood, half submerged in the Elbe River, which was swollen with spring rains. Staub took the picture as LT Bill Robertson and Sergeant Frank Huff climbed out on the broken bridge to meet Sergeant Nikolai Andreev over the middle of the river. It was a risky thing for all of them to do. They could have easily slipped and fallen into the river below. They likely would have drowned among the twisted steel and water. 

 IMGXYZ26309IMGZYX

LT Robertson and his three soldiers were not even supposed to be in Torgau that day. They had been assigned to go look for prisoners of war and make sure they got back to safety. In fact, Robertson had been ordered not to go the Elbe River. He was supposed to go no further than a few kilometers from his headquarters — no where near Torgau. But Robertson was what we in the U.S. Army call a “cowboy:” someone who wanted to be where the action was. There were two other patrols that day who also met with Russian soldiers along the Elbe. But Robertson’s patrol got its report back to headquarters first.  

When Robertson’s Division Commander, General Rheinhardt, heard that Robertson had gone to the Elbe River, he decided to court martial him. But the Army Commander, General Bradley, was pleased with the link up and General Rheinhardt changed his mind. Making the link up with the Soviet forces was very risky for Robertson and his men. First, LT Silvashko and his men thought the Americans might be Germans, so they fired at them from across the river. Robertson was almost shot. Eventually Robertson found a Russian-speaking prisoner in the town who helped signal to Silvashko that they were Americans. Then they had to climb out on the damaged bridge. But those brave men, Americans and Russians, made the effort and linked up. 

For the next 70 years, the U.S.-Russian relationship has been like that day in Torgau: sometimes shooting at each other, sometimes taking the risk to climb out on a broken bridge and link up.  

That is what the Elbe Group does today — try to keep communications open between the U.S. and Russia even when the bridges between us are damaged. The Elbe Group consists of retired U.S. and Russian generals from the military and intelligence services. Our purpose is to maintain an open channel of communication between our two sides and to discuss the most sensitive issues between us.  It is not our purpose to always agree and, we often do not agree. Our meetings are not secret. We meet in third countries because some of us cannot get visas to each other’s country. So we have met in places like Istanbul, Morocco, and Portugal. This past March we met in Torgau Germany. 

We speak openly and frankly and respectfully to each other. It is a respect that has been built up over 5 years of meetings. At our meeting in Torgau we discussed Ukraine and Crimea. We also discussed NATO operations in the Baltic States and Eastern Europe. We talked about common threats to the U.S. and Russia, such as extremism and cyber and nuclear terrorism.

Regarding nuclear terrorism and extremism, both sides agreed that the U.S. and Russia need to work together to combat these threats. We also agreed that the threat from cyber terrorism and cyber criminals is a rapidly growing problem that requires a joint international response.

But regarding Ukraine and Crimea, we did not agree on much. The Russian side insisted that Russia was right in annexing Crimea and is right in supporting the Russian speaking separatists in Ukraine. The Russian side believes that the U.S. is behind the instability in Ukraine and the Middle East and hopes to remain the world’s sole super power by creating crises around the world.

Regarding NATO in Eastern Europe, the U.S. side invited the commander of NATO Ground Forces, LTG Nicholson, to brief the U.S. and Russian sides on what NATO is doing. His briefing, however, did not convince the Russians that NATO actions are not a threat. They still believe that NATO troop and missile defense deployments in the Baltic States and Eastern Europe are a threat to Russian security.

The Americans of course had a completely different view of these situations. The U.S. side insisted that Russia illegally invaded and took Crimea from Ukraine. The U.S. side believes that Russian support to separatists in Ukraine is the reason the country is in crisis — not because of U.S. actions. The U.S. side was amazed that their Russian colleagues thought that America had orchestrated the Arab Spring, since the Americans themselves were just as surprised by what happened there. With regard to NATO, the Americans were adamant in their commitment to protect the Baltic States against any threat similar to what has happened in Ukraine.

What the two sides did agree on was that the risk of an accident along the Baltic border has become significant. As military men, we recognized that having so many aircraft, warships, and troops in the region will eventually lead to an accident — some clash of forces or shoot down of an airplane or ramming of a ship. To prevent such an accident from escalating into combat, we recommended that our defense leaders create a channel of communication for operational commanders to quickly talk and establish the facts of any accident between our forces. 

Seventy years ago, our fathers and grandfathers fought together against a common enemy. That war killed millions and destroyed nations. Russia knows the cost better than most having lost over 27 million people, more than any other nation. In the wartime poem, Vasiliy Terkin, the hero, Terkin, tried to explain to his comrades how terrible war can be. Terkin asked, “Что такое сабантуй? Сабантуй бывает разный.” Terkin, I think, would say that what has happened in Crimea — “Это малый сабантуй.” About Ukraine he would probably say — “Это средний сабантуй.” But about what could happen in the Baltics and elsewhere in Europe — “Это главный сабантуй.”

Today we not only need brave lads like Terkin who are ready to defend our nations, but we also need brave leaders who will climb out on broken bridges in order to avoid shooting at each other. I know that the lads exist. I hope that the leaders do too.