Ronald Reagan said that not only the modern West, but also the world on our planet was born from Winston Churchill's Fulton speech. It also gave birth to the Cold War. The speech was delivered on March 5, 1946.
Oil factor
One of the main stimuli for writing the Fulton speech was the unresolved issue of Iranian oil by that time. From the end of 1943 - the beginning of 1944, two American oil companies - Standard Vacuum and Sinclair oil, as well as the Dutch-British Royal Dutch Shell, with the support of the US and British embassies and the favorable attitude of the Iranian government, began negotiations in Tehran on granting them oil concessions in southern Iran. , in Balochistan. Moscow in 1944 also began to insist on granting the USSR an oil concession in Northern Iran on terms similar to the British concession in Southern Iran, emphasizing that the development of Iranian oil fields by Britain or the United States near the Soviet border would be considered a threat to the state interests of the USSR.
Iron curtain
In the Fulton speech, Churchill first used the expression "Iron Curtain". Interestingly, this phrase was absent from the official version of the speech. The technology of that time did not allow to immediately make a high-quality audio recording of the performance, to restore the timbre of the voices of Churchill and Truman and clean the recording from extraneous noise, the Audio-Scriptions campaign from New York was involved. Only then was the text of the speech finalized and the "Iron Curtain" entered the political lexicon forever.
"Anglo-Saxon Nazism"
A simple lexical analysis of the Fulton speech suggests that it was important for Churchill not to focus on the participation of Britain in the redivision of the world. The former British prime minister delivered the speech as a private individual, which gave him a serious free hand and gave his speech an almost academic significance. In his speech, Winston Churchill used the words "Britain" and "Great Britain" only once. But "British Commonwealth" and the Empire "- six times, "English-speaking peoples" - six times, "related" - eight. Hitler and his friends to the conclusion that the Germans, as the only full-fledged nation, should dominate other nations. The English racial theory leads Mr. Churchill and his friends to the conclusion that the nations that speak English, as the only full-fledged ones, should dominate the rest of the nations of the world.
Pair of jacks
On March 4, 1946, Churchill and Truman boarded a special train that was supposed to take them to Fulton. Both were in excellent spirits. Truman was taking the most famous orator in the world to his hometown, Churchill knew that the planned speech would leave him in history. Even then he considered the Fulton speech his masterpiece. On the train, Churchill and Truman played poker. Turning to Truman, Churchill said: "Well, Harry, I'll risk putting a shilling on a pair of jacks," which caused laughter, because the word "knave" means both a jack and a swindler. Churchill also confessed his love for America, which was obviously not just politeness, but a conscious strategic position. But not only in conversations over whiskey and a card game, the time of the trip passed. It was here, on the train, that Churchill once again edited the text of his speech and gave it the title - The Sinews of Peace. This name can be translated into Russian as "Tendons of the World", but the word "Sinews" also has the meaning of physical strength.
For the leadership of the Soviet Union, the Fulton speech did not come as a surprise. Soviet intelligence worked well: Tass ciphers and translation lay on the table to Stalin and Molotov the very next day. Two days later, Izvestiya published an article by Academician Tarle "Churchill saber-rattling." On March 8, 1946, Radio Moscow reported on Churchill's speech, "made in an exceptionally aggressive tone." A week later, the Pravda newspaper published an account of Churchill's speech with several quotations from it and with his own commentary. A few days later, an interview with Stalin appeared in it. American newspapers published from Pravda a reverse translation of Churchill's speech, and then the full text of Stalin's interview.
"Unthinkable" and Totality
Great Britain and the USA did not hide their wariness because of the possible military aggression of the USSR. By the time the Fulton speech was read, the Totality plan had already been developed in the United States, and in England, in the spring of 1945, Operation Unthinkable had been prepared. One of the main goals pursued by the Fulton speech was to instill the idea that the USSR is a dangerous aggressor with ambitions to conquer the world. In his speech, Churchill "burned with a verb": "the iron curtain" and its "shadow that has fallen on the continent", "fifth columns" and "police states", "complete obedience" and "unconditional expansion of power." Previously, such epithets were used by politicians only in relation to Nazi Germany.
Provincial triumph
Churchill's trip to Fulton was an extraordinary event. The decisive factor that led Churchill to agree was the personal involvement of US President Truman. On the one hand, Churchill was a private person, on the other hand, he spoke accompanied by the leader of the state, on which he himself staked in geopolitics. Despite great organizational difficulties, Churchill's trip to Westminster College was a successful PR stunt that attracted thousands of people to Fulton. Shops and cafes could not cope with the influx of visitors, a protective tape was stretched along the entire route of the cortege, 15 minutes before the appearance of the British guest, people in the crowd were forbidden to even move. Churchill's appearance was staged with pomp, he himself sat in the car and showed his famous "V" sign. This day was a "finest hour" for the former and future Prime Minister of Great Britain. Initially, his speech was called "World Peace". Churchill filigree played in the field of propaganda. As he left, he shook hands with the president of the college and said, "I hope I have set off a reflection that will influence the course of history." And so it happened.
The Cold War, which lasted from 1946 to 1989, was not an ordinary military confrontation. It was a struggle of ideologies, different social systems. The very term "cold war" appeared among journalists, but quickly became popular.
The reasons
It seems that the end of the terrible and bloody World War II should have led to world peace, friendship and unity of all peoples. But the contradictions among the allies and the victors only intensified.
The struggle for spheres of influence began. Both the USSR and the Western countries (led by the USA) sought to expand "their territories".
- Westerners were frightened by communist ideology. They could not even imagine that private property would suddenly become state property.
- The United States and the USSR did their best to increase their influence by supporting various regimes (which sometimes led to local wars around the world).
There was no direct confrontation. Everyone was afraid to press the "red button" and launch nuclear warheads.
Main events
Speech in Fulton as the first "swallow" of the war
In March 1946, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill blamed the Soviet Union. Churchill said that he was engaged in active world expansion, violating rights and freedoms. At the same time, the British Prime Minister called on Western countries to repulse the USSR. It is from this moment that historians count the beginning of the Cold War.
The Truman Doctrine and "Containment" Attempts
The United States decided to start "containment" of the Soviet Union after the events in Greece and Turkey. The USSR demanded territories from the Turkish authorities for the subsequent deployment of a military base in the Mediterranean. This immediately alerted the West. The doctrine of the American President Truman marked the complete cessation of cooperation between the former allies in the anti-Hitler coalition.
Creation of military blocs and division of Germany
In 1949, a military alliance of a number of Western countries, NATO, was created. After 6 years (in 1955) the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe united in the Warsaw Treaty Organization.
Also in 1949, the Federal Republic of Germany appeared on the site of the western zone of occupation of Germany, and the German Democratic Republic appeared on the site of the eastern one.
Chinese Civil War
The civil war in China in 1946–1949 was also a consequence of the ideological struggle between the 2 systems. China after the end of World War II was also divided into 2 parts. The northeast was under the control of the People's Liberation Army of China. The rest were subordinate to Chiang Kai-shek (leader of the Kuomintang Party). When peaceful elections failed, war broke out. The Chinese Communist Party won.
Korean War
Korea also at that time was split into 2 zones of occupation under the control of the USSR and the USA. Their henchmen are Kim Il Sung in the north and Lee Syngman in the south of Korea. Each of them wanted to take over the whole country. A war broke out (1950-1953), which, apart from huge human losses, did not lead to anything. The borders of North and South Korea have not changed much.
Berlin Crisis
The most difficult years of the Cold War - the beginning of the 60s. It was then that the whole world was on the brink of nuclear war. In 1961, Soviet Secretary General Khrushchev demanded that US President Kennedy radically change the status of West Berlin. The Soviet Union was alarmed by the activity of Western intelligence there, as well as the "brain drain" to the West. There was no military clash, but West Berlin was surrounded by a wall - the main symbol of the Cold War. Many German families found themselves on opposite sides of the barricades.
Cuban Crisis
The most intense conflict of the Cold War was the crisis in Cuba in 1962. The USSR, in response to the request of the leaders of the Cuban revolution, agreed to deploy medium-range nuclear missiles on Liberty Island.
As a result, any town in the US could be wiped off the face of the earth in 2-3 seconds. The United States did not like this "neighborhood". I almost got to the “red nuclear button”. But even here the parties managed to agree peacefully. The Soviet Union did not deploy missiles, and the United States guaranteed Cuba not to interfere in their affairs. American missiles were also withdrawn from Turkey.
The policy of "détente"
The Cold War did not always proceed in an acute phase. Sometimes tension was replaced by "detente". During such periods, the US and the USSR entered into important agreements to limit strategic nuclear weapons and missile defense. In 1975, the Helsinki Conference of 2 countries was held, and the Soyuz-Apollo program was launched in space.
A new round of tension
The entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan in 1979 led to a new round of tension. The United States in 1980-1982 waged a set of economic sanctions against the Soviet Union. The installation of regular American missiles in European countries has begun. Under Andropov, all negotiations with the United States ceased.
Crisis of the socialist countries. perestroika
By the mid-1980s, many socialist countries were on the verge of a crisis. Less and less aid came from the USSR. The needs of the population grew, people sought to travel to the West, where they discovered a lot of new things for themselves. The consciousness of people has changed. They wanted change, a life in a more open and free society. The technical lag of the USSR from the countries of the West was intensifying.
- Understanding this, the General Secretary of the USSR Gorbachev tried to revive the economy through "perestroika", give the people more "glasnost" and move on to "new thinking".
- The communist parties of the socialist camp tried to modernize their ideology and move on to a new economic policy.
- The Berlin Wall, which was the symbol of the Cold War, has fallen. The unification of Germany took place.
- The USSR began to withdraw its troops from European countries.
- In 1991, the Warsaw Pact was dissolved.
- The USSR, which did not survive the deep economic crisis, also collapsed.
Results
Historians argue about whether to link the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR. Nevertheless, the end of this confrontation occurred as early as 1989, when many authoritarian regimes in Eastern Europe ceased to exist. Contradictions on the ideological front were completely removed. Many countries of the former socialist bloc became part of the European Union and the North Atlantic Alliance
First you need to answer the question of who started the confrontation between the former comrades-in-arms in the anti-Hitler coalition, which went down in history as the Cold War. The West started it. That is the UK and the US. It turned out that apart from Adolf Hitler, there was no one to rally yesterday's allies. If not for the policy of the Fuhrer, then the balance of power in World War II could be completely different. Without going into details, let me remind you about the plans of the British and French in 1940 to bomb Baku and land their troops in Finland in order to. These plans were thwarted again by Hitler, who landed in Norway and made the appearance of allies near Leningrad "technically" impossible. And then, on June 22, 1941, he united London and Moscow in one confrontation with fascism, after a while. Little is said about this now, but at the time of the German attack on the USSR, our relations with England were so "warm" that the British ambassador was absent in Moscow. He was recalled from Moscow back in May and returned ONLY at the end of June 1941.
Now, remembering a bit of history, let's remember who started the confrontation between the West and the East after the defeat of Germany and Japan. In fact, the verb "began" hides from us the essence of events. Did not start, but continued!
And this was done by the same politicians who prepared the bombing of Baku in 1940. Our British "partners". Personally, Sir Winston Churchill. It was his speech, delivered in the American city of Fulton, that became the starting point of the Cold War. This happened 70 years ago.
Churchill at that moment was not the head of the British government - he was a politician who lost the election. Therefore, he prepared seriously for the speech that he was UNCONDITIONALLY asked to voice. After all, it was not a simple speech or statement. It was an ultimatum from the West to Stalin. The USSR refused to ratify the Bretton Woods Agreement, which was signed by us, among other things, in the summer of 1944. Stalin refused ratification in December 1945. On March 5, 1946, Churchill took the floor. The reader of the beginning of the 21st century knows the value of the words of Western politicians about freedom and democracy. And much of Churchill's speech is painfully reminiscent of today's speeches by leaders in the US and Europe. And what happened when Gorbachev did exactly what Churchill called for - surrendered the Soviet zone of influence and capitulated. I don’t think that many in our country are satisfied with the state of affairs that the West has imposed on us since 1991…
So - the "iron curtain" lowered the West. It was he who began the confrontation with the USSR around the world. And do not forget that the atomic bomb at that moment was ONLY in the United States!
(the most important points of the speech are underlined by N.S.)
Churchill's Fulton speech
I am happy to have arrived at Westminster College today and that you have awarded me my degree. The name "Westminster" tells me something. It seems like I heard it somewhere. After all, it was at Westminster that I received the lion's share of my education in politics, dialectics, rhetoric, and, well, something else. In fact, you and I were educated in the same or similar educational institutions.
It is also an honor, perhaps almost unique, for an individual to be introduced to an academic audience by the President of the United States. Burdened with many different concerns and responsibilities that he does not covet but does not run away from, the President traveled 1,000 miles to honor our meeting today with his presence and emphasize its significance, giving me the opportunity to address this kindred country, my compatriots. on the other side of the ocean, and maybe even to some other countries.
The President has already told you of his desire, which I am sure is the same as yours, that I be fully free to give you my honest and faithful advice in these troubled and troubled times.
I will, of course, take advantage of this freedom afforded to me, and feel all the more entitled to do so, since whatever personal ambitions I may have had in my younger years have long been satisfied beyond my wildest dreams. I must, however, state with all certainty that I have neither official mandate nor status for this kind of speech, and I speak only on my own behalf. So what you see is what you see.
Therefore, I can afford, with the experience of my life, to reflect on the problems that beset us immediately after our complete victory on the battlefields, and try my best to ensure the preservation of what has been gained with such sacrifice and suffering in the name of the coming glory and the security of mankind.
The United States is currently at the pinnacle of world power. Today is a solemn moment for American democracy, for along with its superiority in strength, it has assumed an incredible responsibility for the future. Looking around, you should not only feel a sense of accomplishment, but also the concern that you may not be up to par with what is expected of you. Opportunities are there, and they are very clear for both of our countries. To reject them, to ignore them, or to squander them to no avail would be to incur the endless reproaches of future times.
Constancy of thought, perseverance in pursuing a goal, and great simplicity of decision should guide and determine the behavior of the English-speaking countries in peacetime, as it was in wartime. We must and, I think, will be able to rise to the height of this tough demand.
When the US military is faced with any serious situation, they usually preface their directives with the words "overall strategic concept." There is wisdom in this, because having such a concept leads to clarity of thought. The general strategic concept that we must adhere to today is nothing less than the security and well-being, freedom and progress of all family homes, all people in all countries. I am referring primarily to the millions of cottages and tenements whose inhabitants, despite the vicissitudes and difficulties of life, seek to protect their households from deprivation and raise their families in fear of the Lord or based on ethical principles, which often play an important role. To ensure the security of these countless dwellings, they must be protected from two main disasters - war and tyranny. Everyone knows the terrible shock experienced by any family when the curse of war falls on its breadwinner, who works for her and overcomes the hardships of life. Before our eyes gape the terrible destruction of Europe with all its former values and a large part of Asia. When the intentions of malevolent people or the aggressive tendencies of powerful powers destroy the foundations of civilized society in many parts of the world, ordinary people are faced with difficulties that they cannot cope with. For them, everything is distorted, broken, or even pulverized.
As I stand here on this quiet day, I shudder at the thought of what is happening in real life to millions of people and what will happen to them when hunger strikes the planet. No one can calculate what is called "the incalculable sum of human suffering." Our main task and duty is to protect the families of ordinary people from the horrors and misfortunes of another war. On this we all agree.
Our American military colleagues, after they have defined the "general strategic concept" and calculated all available resources, always move on to the next stage - the search for means of its implementation. There is also general agreement on this issue. A world organization has already been formed with the fundamental aim of preventing war. The UN, the successor to the League of Nations with the decisive addition of the US and all that it means, has already begun its work. We must ensure the success of this activity, so that it is real and not fictitious, so that this organization is a force capable of acting, and not just shaking the air, and so that it becomes a true Temple of Peace in which it will be possible to hang the battle shields of many countries , and not just cutting down the world tower of Babel. Before we can free ourselves from the need for national armaments for self-preservation, we must be sure that our temple is not built on quicksand or bog, but on a solid rocky foundation. Everyone with an open eye knows that our path will be difficult and long, but if we firmly follow the course that we followed during the two world wars (and, unfortunately, did not follow in the interval between them), then I have there is no doubt that, in the end, we will be able to achieve our common goal.
Here I have a practical suggestion for action. The courts cannot function without sheriffs and constables. The United Nations must immediately begin to be equipped with an international military force. In such a matter we can only advance gradually, but we must begin now. I propose that all States be invited to place at the disposal of the World Organization a certain number of air squadrons. These squadrons would be trained in their own countries, but would be transferred in rotation from one country to another. The pilots would wear the military uniform of their countries, but with different insignia. They could not be required to take part in hostilities against their own country, but in all other respects they would be directed by the World Organization. It would be possible to start creating such forces at a modest level and build them up as confidence grows. I wanted this to be done after the First World War, and I sincerely believe that it can be done now.
However, it would be wrong and imprudent to trust the secret information and experience in the creation of the atomic bomb, which the United States, Great Britain and Canada currently possess, to a World Organization still in its infancy. It would be criminal folly to let these weapons float in a still turbulent and ununited world. Not a single person, in any country, began to sleep worse from the fact that the information, funds and raw materials for creating this bomb are now concentrated mainly in American hands. I don't think that we would be sleeping so peacefully now if the situation had been reversed, and some communist or neo-fascist state had monopolized this terrible tool for a while. The fear of him alone would be enough for totalitarian systems to impose themselves on the free democratic world. The horrifying consequences of this would defy human imagination. The Lord commanded that this should not happen, and we still have time to get our house in order before such a danger arises. But even if we spare no effort, we must still have a superiority striking enough to have effective deterrents against its use or the threat of such use by other countries. Ultimately, when the true brotherhood of man would have a real embodiment in the form of a World Organization that would have all the necessary practical means to make it effective, such powers could be transferred to it.
Now I come to the second danger that lies in wait for family hearths and ordinary people, namely, tyranny. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that the freedoms enjoyed by citizens throughout the British Empire do not apply in a significant number of countries; some of them are quite powerful. In these states, power is imposed on the common people by pervasive police governments. The power of the state is exercised without limitation by dictators or closely knit oligarchies who rule with the help of a privileged party and political police. At the present time, when there are still so many difficulties, it cannot be our duty to forcibly intervene in the internal affairs of countries with which we are not at war. We must tirelessly and fearlessly proclaim the great principles of liberty and human rights which are the common heritage of the English-speaking world, and which, through the development of the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, jury trials, and the English common law, found their most famous expression in the Declaration of Independence. They mean that the people of any country have the right, and should be able, by constitutional action, by free, non-rigged elections by secret ballot, to choose or change the character or form of government under which they live; that freedom of speech and press should prevail; that tribunals, independent of the executive, and not subject to the influence of any party, should enforce laws that have been approved by a large majority of the population, or sanctified by time or custom. These are fundamental freedom rights that every home should know. This is the message of the British and American peoples to all mankind. Let's preach what we do and do what we preach.
So, I have identified two main dangers that threaten the family hearths of people. I did not talk about poverty and deprivation, which often worries people the most. But if the dangers of war and tyranny are eliminated, then, undoubtedly, science and cooperation in the next few years, a few decades at most, will bring to the world, which has gone through the cruel school of war, an increase in material well-being, unprecedented in the history of mankind. At the present time, in this sad and stupefying moment, we are oppressed by the hunger and despondency that have come after our colossal struggle. But all this will pass and can be quickly, and there are no reasons, except for human stupidity and inhuman crime, which would prevent all countries, without exception, from taking advantage of the onset of an age of plenty. I often quote words that I heard fifty years ago from the great Irish-American orator and my friend Burke Cochran: “There is enough for everyone. The earth is a generous mother. She will give a full abundance of food for all her children, if only they will cultivate it in justice and peace.
So, so far we are in complete agreement. Now, continuing to use the methodology of our common strategic concept, I come to the main thing that I wanted to say here. Neither the effective prevention of war nor the permanent expansion of the influence of the World Organization can be achieved without the fraternal union of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and the British Empire and the United States. We have no time for platitudes, and I dare to be specific. The fraternal union requires not only the growth of friendship and understanding between our kindred systems of society, but also the continuation of close ties between our military, which should lead to a joint study of potential dangers, the compatibility of weapons and military regulations, and the exchange of officers and cadets of military technical colleges. It would also mean further use of the means already available to ensure mutual security through the joint use of all naval and air bases. This would possibly double the mobility of the US Navy and Air Force. This would greatly increase the mobility of the armed forces of the British Empire, and also, as the world calms down, would provide significant financial savings. We already share a number of islands; in the near future, other islands may go into joint use. The US already has a permanent defense agreement with the Dominion of Canada, which is deeply committed to the British Commonwealth and Empire. This agreement is more effective than many of those that are often entered into within the framework of formal alliances. This principle should be extended to all countries of the British Commonwealth with full reciprocity. Thus, and only thus, can we, whatever happens, secure ourselves and work together for the sake of high and simple goals that are dear to us and not harmful to anyone. At the very last stage, the idea of common citizenship may be realized (and, I believe, will eventually be realized), but we can well leave this issue to the fate, whose outstretched hand so many of us already clearly see.
There is, however, one important question we must ask ourselves. Will the special relationship between the US and the British Commonwealth be compatible with the fundamental allegiance of the World Organization? My answer is that such relationships, on the contrary, are probably the only means by which this organization can gain status and power. There are already special relationships between the US and Canada and the South American republics. We also have a 20-year agreement on cooperation and mutual assistance with Russia. I agree with British Foreign Secretary Mr. Bevin that this treaty, to the extent that it depends on us, can be concluded for 50 years. Our only goal is mutual assistance and cooperation. Our alliance with Portugal has been in effect since 1384 and has produced fruitful results at the critical moments of the last war. None of these agreements is in conflict with the general interests of the world agreement. On the contrary, they can help the work of the World Organization. “In the house of the Lord there is enough room for everyone.” A special relationship between the United Nations, which does not have an aggressive direction against any country and does not carry plans inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, is not only not harmful, but useful and, I believe, necessary.
I have already spoken about the Temple of Peace. This Temple must be erected by workers from all countries. If two of these builders know each other especially well and are old friends, if their families are jumbled and, to quote the clever words that caught my eye the day before yesterday, "if they have faith in each other's goals, hope for each other's future and indulgence to each other's shortcomings," then why can't they work together towards a common goal as friends and partners? Why can't they share tools and thus increase each other's ability to work? They not only can, but must do it, otherwise the Temple will not be erected or will collapse after being built by mediocre students, and we will again, for the third time, study at the school of war, which will be incomparably more cruel than the one from which we just got out.
The times of the Middle Ages can return, and the Stone Age can return on the sparkling wings of science, and what can now be shed on humanity with immeasurable material wealth can lead to its complete destruction. That's why I call: be vigilant. Perhaps there is not enough time left. Let's not let things take their course until it's too late. If we want to have such a fraternal alliance as I have just spoken about, with all the extra strength and security that both our countries can derive from it, let's make this great cause known everywhere and play its part in strengthening the foundations of peace. It is better to prevent a disease than to cure it.
A shadow has fallen on the picture of the world so recently illuminated by the Allied victory. Nobody knows what Soviet Russia and its international communist organization intend to do in the near future and what are the limits, if any, to their expansionist and converting tendencies. I deeply admire and honor the valiant Russian people and my wartime comrade Marshal Stalin. In England - I have no doubt that here too - they have deep sympathy and good will for all the peoples of Russia and the determination to overcome numerous disagreements and breakdowns in the name of establishing a lasting friendship. We understand that Russia needs to ensure the security of its western borders from a possible resumption of German aggression. We are glad to see it in its rightful place among the world's leading powers. We salute her flag on the seas. And above all, we welcome the constant, frequent and growing ties between the Russians and our peoples on both sides of the Atlantic. However, I consider it my duty to give you some facts - I'm sure you want me to tell you the facts as they appear to me - about the present situation in Europe.
From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain descended on the continent. On the other side of the curtain are all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe - Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest, Sofia. All these famous cities and the populations in their districts fell within what I call the Soviet sphere, all of them, in one form or another, not only under Soviet influence, but also under the considerable and increasing control of Moscow. Only Athens, with its immortal glory, is free to determine its future in elections with the participation of British, American and French observers. The Russian-dominated Polish government is being encouraged to make huge and unjust encroachments on Germany, leading to mass expulsions of millions of Germans on a deplorable and unprecedented scale. The Communist Parties, which were very small in all these states of Eastern Europe, have attained an exceptional strength, far outnumbering them, and are striving to establish totalitarian control everywhere. Almost all of these countries are run by police governments, and to this day, with the exception of Czechoslovakia, there is no true democracy in them. Turkey and Persia are deeply concerned and concerned about the claims that are made against them and the pressure they are subjected to by the government of Moscow. In Berlin, the Russians are attempting to create a quasi-communist party in their zone of occupied Germany by granting special privileges to groups of German left leaders.
After the fighting last June, the American and British armies, in accordance with an earlier agreement, withdrew to the West along a front of almost 400 miles in depth, in some cases reaching 150 miles, in order for our Russian allies to occupy this vast territory that they had conquered. Western democracies.
If the Soviet government now attempts to create a pro-communist Germany in its zone by separate actions, this will cause new serious difficulties in the British and American zones and will give the defeated Germans the opportunity to arrange a bargain between the Soviets and the Western democracies. Whatever conclusions one draws from these facts - and they are all facts - this will clearly not be the liberated Europe for which we fought. And not Europe, which has the necessary prerequisites for building a lasting peace.
The security of the world requires a new unity in Europe, from which neither side should be permanently alienated. From the quarrels of these strong native races in Europe there were the world wars which we have witnessed or which have broken out in former times. Twice in the course of our lives the United States, against its will and tradition, and against arguments that cannot be misunderstood, has been dragged by irresistible forces into these wars in order to ensure the victory of a just cause, but only after terrible carnage and devastation. Twice the United States was forced to send millions of its young men across the Atlantic to war. But at the present time, war can befall any country, wherever it may be between dusk and dawn. We must certainly act with the conscious aim of the great appeasement of Europe within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter. This, in my opinion, is a policy of exceptional importance.
On the other side of the Iron Curtain that has descended across Europe, there are other reasons for concern. In Italy, the activities of the Communist Party are seriously constrained by the need to support the claims of the Communist-trained Marshal Tito to the former Italian territory in the center of the Adriatic. However, the situation in Italy remains uncertain. Again, it is impossible to imagine a restored Europe without a strong France. All my life I have advocated the existence of a strong France and never, even in the darkest of times, have I lost faith in her future. And now I do not lose this faith. However, in many countries around the world, far from the borders of Russia, communist fifth columns have been created that operate in complete unity and absolute obedience to the directives they receive from the communist center. With the exception of the British Commonwealth and the United States, where communism is in its infancy, communist parties, or fifth columns, represent an ever-increasing challenge and danger to Christian civilization. All these are painful facts, which we have to speak about immediately after the victory won by such a magnificent comradeship in arms in the name of peace and democracy. But it would be highly unwise not to see them while there is still time. There are also concerns about the prospects in the Far East, especially in Manchuria. The agreement reached at Yalta, in which I was involved, was extremely favorable for Russia. But it was concluded at a time when no one could say that the war would end in the summer or fall of 1945, and when it was expected that the war with Japan would go on within 18 months after the end of the war with Germany. In your country, you are so well informed about the Far East and are such true friends of China that I need not expand on the situation there.
I felt obliged to paint for you the shadow that both in the West and in the East falls on the whole world. At the time of the Treaty of Versailles, I was a minister and a close friend of Mr. Lloyd George, who led the British delegation to Versailles. I did not agree with much of what was done there, but I had a very vivid impression of the situation of that time, and it pains me to compare it with the current one. These were times of great expectation and boundless confidence that there would be no more wars and that the League of Nations would become all-powerful. Today I do not see and do not feel such confidence and such hopes in our tormented world.
On the other hand, I drive away the idea that a new war is inevitable, especially in the very near future. And precisely because I am sure that our destinies are in our hands and we are able to save the future, I consider it my duty to speak out on this issue, since I have the opportunity and the opportunity to do so. I do not believe that Russia wants war. What she wants is the fruits of war and the unlimited spread of her power and doctrines. But what we have to think about here today, while there is still time, is to prevent wars forever and create the conditions for freedom and democracy as soon as possible in all countries. Our difficulties and dangers will not disappear if we close our eyes to them, or simply wait to see what happens, or pursue a policy of appeasement. We need to reach a settlement, and the longer it takes, the more difficult it will be and the more formidable the dangers will become before us. From what I observed in the behavior of our Russian friends and allies during the war, I came to the conclusion that they respect nothing more than strength, and have no less respect for anything than military weakness. For this reason, the old doctrine of the balance of power is now unusable. We cannot afford, as far as we can, to act from a position of small margin, which leads to the temptation to test our strength. If the Western democracies stand together in their firm adherence to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, their impact on the development of these principles will be enormous and hardly anyone will be able to shake them. If, however, they are separated or fail to fulfill their duty, and if they miss these decisive years, then we shall indeed be in for a catastrophe.
The last time I saw this turn of events, I called out at the top of my voice to my compatriots and to the whole world, but no one was willing to listen. Until 1933, or even until 1935, Germany could have been saved from the terrible fate that befell her, and we would have been spared the misfortunes that Hitler brought down on humanity. Never before in history has there been a war that could have been more easily averted by timely action than the one that has just ravaged vast areas of the globe. It, I am convinced, could have been prevented without firing a shot, and today Germany would be a powerful, prosperous and respected country; but then they did not want to listen to me, and one by one we were drawn into a terrible tornado. We must not allow this to happen again.
Now this can only be achieved by reaching today, in 1946, a good understanding with Russia on all issues under the general auspices of the United Nations, maintaining this good understanding with the help of this world instrument for many years, relying on all the power of the English-speaking world and all those who is associated with it. Let no one underestimate the imposing strength of the British Empire and the Commonwealth. Although you see 46 million people on our island who are struggling with food, and although we have difficulty rebuilding our industry and export trade after 6 years of selfless war effort, do not think that we will not be able to get through this gloomy streak of hardships like this. just as we went through the glorious years of suffering, or that in half a century we will not be 70 or 80 million living all over the world and united in protecting our traditions, our way of life and those universal values that we profess. If the people of the British Commonwealth and the United States act together, for all that such cooperation means in the air, at sea, in science and economy, then that restless, unstable balance of power that would tempt ambition or adventurism will be eliminated. On the contrary, there will be a perfect assurance of security. If we faithfully observe the Charter of the United Nations and move forward with calm and sober strength, not claiming foreign lands and riches, and not seeking arbitrary control over the thoughts of the people, if all the moral and material forces of Britain unite with yours in fraternal alliance, then wide paths to the future will be opened - not only for us, but for everyone, not only for our time, but also for a century ahead.
Does everyone understand that today we have become participants in a new great historical event, that the mass expulsion of Russian diplomats from Western countries is the beginning of a new Cold War? On March 5, 1946, with the speech of Briton Winston Churchill, the First "Cold War" of the Western countries against Soviet Russia began, which ended on August 24, 1991 with the complete collapse and collapse of the USSR, the formation of new national states on the ruins of the empire. Our generation happened to become participants in these historical events, we are destined to destroy the Russian Empire to the end, break tsarism and communism to the ground - this is an important mission, of which we are all participants. In 2014, Ukraine launched a war for independence against Russian aggression. Today, the political situation in the world has changed radically - Western countries have also recognized the Russian Federation as their main adversary, and now Ukraine's foreign policy position has become immeasurably stronger. Today, Ukraine has new chances to take more decisive steps towards integration into the EU and NATO.
British Prime Minister Theresa May today, March 26, 2018, is creating a new anti-Russian front. Just like her great predecessor, Winston Churchill began to create an anti-Russian front on March 5, 1946 in Fulton, 72 years ago.
Listen to the main points of this great speech:
“When the US military is faced with any serious situation, they usually preface their directives with the words “overall strategic concept”. There is wisdom in this, because having such a concept leads to clarity of thought. The general strategic concept that we must adhere to today is nothing less than the security and well-being, freedom and progress of all family homes, all people in all countries.
We cannot close our eyes to the fact that the freedoms enjoyed by citizens throughout the British Empire do not apply in a significant number of countries; some of them are quite powerful. In these states, power is imposed on the common people by pervasive police governments. The power of the state is exercised without limitation by dictators or closely knit oligarchies who rule with the help of a privileged party and political police. At the present time, when there are still so many difficulties, it cannot be our duty to forcibly intervene in the internal affairs of countries with which we are not at war. We must tirelessly and fearlessly proclaim the great principles of liberty and human rights which are the common heritage of the English-speaking world, and which, through the development of the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, jury trials, and the English common law, found their most famous expression in the Declaration of Independence. They mean that the people of any country have the right, and should be able, by constitutional action, by free, non-rigged elections by secret ballot, to choose or change the character or form of government under which they live; that freedom of speech and press should prevail; that tribunals, independent of the executive, and not subject to the influence of any party, should enforce laws that have been approved by a large majority of the population, or sanctified by time or custom. These are fundamental freedom rights that every home should know. This is the message of the British and American peoples to all mankind. Let's preach what we do and do what we preach.
… An iron curtain descended on the continent.
I do not believe that Russia wants war. What she wants is the fruits of war and the unlimited spread of her power and doctrines. But what we have to think about here today, while there is still time, is to prevent wars forever and create the conditions for freedom and democracy as soon as possible in all countries. Our difficulties and dangers will not disappear if we close our eyes to them, or simply wait to see what happens, or pursue a policy of appeasement.
We need to reach a settlement, and the longer it takes, the more difficult it will be and the more formidable the dangers will become before us. From what I observed in the behavior of our Russian friends and allies during the war, I came to the conclusion that they respect nothing more than strength, and have no less respect for anything than military weakness. For this reason, the old doctrine of the balance of power is now unusable. We cannot afford, as far as we can, to act from a position of small margin, which leads to the temptation to test our strength. If the Western democracies stand together in their firm adherence to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, their impact on the development of these principles will be enormous and hardly anyone will be able to shake them. If, however, they are separated or unable to fulfill their duty, and if they miss these decisive years, then we will indeed be catastrophe.”
Winston Churchill, March 5, 1946, Fulton. This speech started the Cold War. The anti-Soviet front then did not take shape quickly, more than one year, and the contacts with the USSR the West did not completely cut off the dialogue was not lost. But it was a relationship. which were determined not by good neighborliness, but simply by caution and security.
Today is the time for historic speeches. Time to remember Churchill.
For the first time since 2014, the West has carried out systemic anti-Russian actions aimed at curtailing not just economic contacts, but diplomatic relations themselves. The United States is expelling 60 Russian diplomats, the UK has expelled 23 diplomats, dozens of Russian diplomats are expelling 14 countries of the European Union. And further anti-Russian actions continue.
Even Albania, which is not a member of the EU, today announced the expulsion of two Russian diplomats. No matter what compliments individual politicians in the EU make, no matter what congratulations Trump brings to Putin, the scenery does not affect strategic decisions in any way.
Russia is officially recognized as an enemy, which carries out hostile aggressive actions against the countries of the West against Great Britain - a NATO country. And it was the war in Ukraine and our desperate resistance that created the ground for the West to make such a decision.
This political decision means that now the lifting of economic sanctions against the Russian Federation as a result of the war in Ukraine is impossible.
I have no doubt that this Cold War, with our active participation, will end with the same result as the first Cold War — the defeat of the Russian Empire, the liberation of Crimea and Donbass, and other processes of collapse. Victory in the war with the Russian Federation today no longer seems like a utopia - it is already a clearly understandable and achievable strategy. Ukraine is the engine of many events now.
It is the effectiveness of building a democratic state, modern, not totalitarian, that will become the best anti-Putin agitation and a model of a free democratic path for the new post-Putin Russia.
It is the reform of the army and the infliction of unacceptable losses on the Russian occupiers at the front that will be the best demonstration of the impotence and weakness of Putinism.
Ukraine must join forces in order to realize a unique historical chance - the whole world is ready to support us so that we emerge victorious in the War of Independence. And we are obliged to use this chance and show that our generation is people who are able to turn the wheel of history in the right direction.
The opinions expressed in the "Opinions" section represent the views of the authors themselves and do not necessarily reflect the position of the editors. The editors of the site are not responsible for the accuracy of such materials, and the site performs only the role of a carrier
The confrontation between the two superpowers, in which their allies also participated, was not a war in the truest sense of the term, the main weapon here was ideology. For the first time, the expression "" was used in his article "You and the Atomic" by the famous British writer George Orwell. In it, he accurately described the confrontation between invincible superpowers that possess atomic weapons, but agreed not to use them, remaining in a state of peace, which, in fact, is not peace.
Post-war prerequisites for the start of the Cold War
After the end of the Second World War, the allied states - members of the Anti-Hitler coalition faced the global question of the upcoming struggle for peace. The United States and Great Britain, concerned about the military power of the USSR, not wanting to lose their leadership positions in global politics, began to perceive the Soviet Union as a future potential adversary. Even before the signing of the official act of surrender of Germany in April 1945, the British government began to develop plans for a possible war with the USSR. In his memoirs, Winston Churchill justified this by saying that at that time Soviet Russia, inspired by a hard and long-awaited victory, had become a deadly threat to the entire free world.
The USSR was well aware that the former Western allies were planning a new aggression. The European part of the Soviet Union was exhausted and destroyed, all resources were involved in the restoration of cities. A possible new war could become even more protracted and require even greater expenses, which the USSR would hardly have coped with, unlike the less affected West. But the country could not show its vulnerability in any way.
Therefore, the authorities of the Soviet Union invested huge funds not only in the reconstruction of the country, but also in the maintenance and development of the communist parties in the West, seeking to expand the influence of socialism. In addition, the Soviet authorities put forward a number of territorial demands, which further intensified the confrontation between the USSR, the USA and Great Britain.
Fulton speech
In March 1946, Churchill, speaking at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, USA, gave a speech that in the USSR came to be considered a signal to start. In his speech, Churchill explicitly called on all Western states to unite for the coming fight against the communist threat. It is worth noting the fact that at that time Churchill was not the Prime Minister of England and acted as a private person, but his speech clearly outlined the new foreign policy of the West. It is historically believed that it was Churchill's Fulton speech that gave impetus to the formal beginning of the Cold War - a long confrontation between the USA and the USSR.
Truman Doctrine
A year later, in 1947, US President Harry Truman, in his statement known as the Truman Doctrine, finally formulated the US foreign policy objectives. The Truman Doctrine marked the transition from post-war cooperation between the US and the USSR to open rivalry, which was called in a statement by the American president a conflict of interests between democracy and totalitarianism.
