Moreover, the entry of Ukraine and Belarus into the UN in 1945 was the first foreign policy step in the formation of the NKTF. However, this strategic project was opposed not only by the West, but also by some, it seems, allies of the USSR. And in the top Soviet leadership there were quite a few opponents of the Slavic interstate confederation.
As is known, during the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet leadership pursued a line on the strengthening, above all, of the military-political union of Slavic peoples, and after its termination - the political-economic union of Slavic states. At first, in 1946-1947, the project of a confederative state was actively supported by IB Tito and other leaders of Yugoslavia. Moreover, Tito proposed Belgrade as the capital of the new state, to which the USSR did not object, because it did not want to officially position itself as the “leader” of this state. Similar was the position on the project and other Slavic countries.
By the way, as early as 5 on April 1941, when, during a visit to Moscow by Yugoslav Prime Minister Dusan Simovic, an 5-year Treaty with the USSR “On friendship and non-aggression” was signed against the fascist aggressors, the idea of a union of Slavic states was discussed in an interview with Stalin from their political and ideological systems. Simovic noted that Yugoslavia, in principle, supports this idea, and also stressed the fact that Serbia and Montenegro were in favor of such an alliance in the 19 century. However, will the Western powers — Germany, Italy, the Vatican — allow such a state to be created? Stalin replied that for them this union was not only unprofitable, but also dangerous. And the next day the troops of Germany, Italy and Hungary invaded Yugoslavia and soon occupied it. And the project was developed further in 1945.
At a reception in the Kremlin in honor of Czechoslovakia’s President E. Benes 28 March 1945 IV Stalin proposed a toast "For the new Slavophiles who stand for the union of independent Slavic states!"
The Generalissimo emphasized that “both the first and the second world wars unfolded and advanced on the backs of the Slavic peoples. In order not to let the Germans rise and start a new war, we need a union of Slavic peoples. ”
We emphasize that, after Stalin, not a single political figure of the USSR never publicly used the term “Slavs,” not to mention the “union of Slavic peoples,” because the policy of the post-Stalinist leadership was essentially anti-Slavic. But in 1946, the idea of a Slavic interstate education was unanimously supported by the VI All-Slavic Congress, held in Belgrade on December 8-11, including in the speech of Tito. However, it was provoked by the “Titos” in 1948-1949. the break in military-political ties with the USSR and other socialist countries and, moreover, the participation of Yugoslavia in the so-called “Balkan Pact” created in 1952, which included, along with Yugoslavia, Greece and Turkey (members of NATO) - brought Yugoslavia from the Slavic project.
It would seem that at that time the USSR had to respond by creating a military-political bloc similar to NATO, but Moscow chose a different strategy: the Warsaw Pact was established only on May 14 of the year 1955. And in 1947-1953. The Soviet Union has concluded long-term agreements on mutual military assistance, coordination of foreign policy and close economic cooperation with countries that are potential participants in the JCL. In the same period, it can be said that the “cross” economic interaction of the same (and other) Eastern European countries was formed within the framework of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA), announced in early January 1949. Since the autumn of 1952, the CMEA member countries have begun to coordinate domestic and foreign economic plans.
In the same period, persecution of priests and believers ceased in the USSR. That is, the economic, political and, let's say, interfaith foundation of the Allied Slavic confederation was created in 1946-1953 years.
In the USSR, the creation of such a state was coordinated by the Slavic Committee of the USSR, created in March 1947. It was attended by many economic, legal and ideological agencies - All-Union, Belarusian and Ukrainian. He became the successor of the October 5 of the All-Slavic Committee established in Moscow on October 1941. Its permanent chairman was Lieutenant-General of Engineering Troops Alexander Semenovich Gundorov (1894-1973). The presidium of the committee included well-known figures: commanders F.I. Tolbukhin, S.A. Kovpak, writers N.S. Tikhonov, Yakub Kolas, V.V. Vishnevsky, A.E. Korneychuk, BD scientists Grekov, N.S. Derzhavin, N.A. Voznesensky (Chairman of the USSR State Planning Committee until the Autumn of 1948), M.Z. Saburov (Chairman of the USSR State Planning Committee in 1949-1958), ETC. Lysenko, the first chairman of the board of the Union of Composers of the USSR B.V. Asafiev, People's Artist of the USSR L.P. Aleksandrovskaya, Minister of Higher Education of the USSR S.V. Kaftanov, Metropolitan of Krutitsky and Nikolai Kolomensky (Yarushevich).
The printed organ of this committee in 1947 was the monthly journal Slavs, published since December 1941. And how intensively the Slavic Committee of the USSR worked, at least in the culturalhistorical some events, for example, in 1949, testify to the sphere: the 100th anniversary of the birth of the Bulgarian poet and publicist Hristo Botev; 125th anniversary of the birth of the Czech composer B. Smetana; 200th anniversary of the death of the Polish poet J. Slowacki; events in memory of A. Mitskevich; lectures and brochures on Slavic statehood were held.
A frequent guest of the committee was the chairman of the North American Slavic Congress, Leo Krzycki (Polish). Since the autumn of 1947, cooperation has been established with the Canadian Slavic Committee and its Secretary General John Boyd (I. Boichuk, Western Ukrainian), and since 1950 with the Partnership of United Ukrainians of Canada. Since 1952, contacts began to be established with Slavic organizations in Argentina (with the assistance of country leader H. Peron), Australia, and New Zealand. For example, in a certificate prepared for the CPSU Central Committee on the work of the USSR Slavic Committee for 1953, it was noted in particular that “... in order to assist the Slavic Union of Uruguay in organizing a library and improving the work of Russian schools for children and adults, the USSR Slavic Committee sent this union in 1953, more than 1500 of various books and textbooks, as well as geographical maps, school tables, etc. materials. " In the same year, the Slavic Committee of the USSR held solemn meetings in connection with the 10 anniversary of the battle of Lenino (in the Mogilev region of Belarus in mid-October 1943, where Polish units distinguished themselves), with the 75 anniversary of the liberation of Bulgaria from the Ottoman yoke, the 75 anniversary since the birth of an outstanding public figure and writer of Czechoslovakia, Zdenek Needla. These and other events were widely reported in the media of the USSR and Eastern European Slavic states, they were regularly reported in the Yugoslav press.
The Slavic Committee often exchanged delegations with the Slavic communities of Great Britain, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Iran, Lebanon, Iraq, Italy, Spain, France, Sweden, USA, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Ethiopia, Australia, New Zealand Union of South Africa (SAU). Note that in the absence of official relations of the USSR with a number of countries mentioned, including Spain and South Africa (diplomatic relations with South Africa established by spring 1942, were interrupted by 1949 in summer by Pretoria’s decision), the Slavic Committee of the Soviet Union practically highly successful.
Similar committees and their media were equally active in Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria.
However, the creation of NATO’s 1949 in April and the aggravation of Soviet-Yugoslav relations, the outbreak of war in Korea slowed down the process of creating a “Slavic Union Confederate State”
However, in those years, in the top leadership of the USSR, work was already carried out to curtail this strategic project. According to archival data, Khrushchev, Malenkov, Beria, Mikoyan more than once tried to convince Stalin of the prematurity of such a project, as well as that the creation of the HSCC would quickly worsen the already tense relations with the United States and NATO. What, they say, is better to create a "pro-Soviet" NATO.
In addition, the head of Bulgaria G. Dimitrov supported the idea of I. B. from the very beginning. Tito, put forward in 1948 year, on the creation of the so-called "Balkan" and more widely - "Danube-Balkan confederation" or "federation", and with the participation of all Eastern European countries, as well as Greece and Albania. That in fact relegated to the background the project of the Slavic interstate confederation.
Stalin publicly condemned the idea of Tito-Dimitrov during the trilateral Soviet-Bulgarian-Yugoslav meeting of 10 on February 1948 in Moscow (G. Dimitrov and V. Kolarov attended Bulgaria, and E. Kardel, M. Djilas and V. Bakarich from Bulgaria attended). Tito pointedly refused to come to this meeting. On the "trial" proposal of the Yugoslav delegation that a draft federation of Yugoslavia with Albania was being prepared, Stalin sharply objected: "No, first the federation of Bulgaria-Yugoslavia, and then both with Albania." He added: “We think that it is also necessary to create a federation uniting Poland with Czechoslovakia. Or - it can be a confederation ”(see, for example, E. Hodge,“ Reflections on Yugoslav “socialism”, Tirana, Russian language, 1981 g., Complete Works and IW Stalin's letters in 33- x volumes, Beijing-Tirana, 1977-1979, t. 28).
It seems that Stalin reasonably saw in the idea of Belgrade and Sofia an attempt to "blur" the formation of the Slavic confederative union and indirectly represent the USSR as a kind of liquidator of the state independence of Eastern European countries. The inclusion of Greece in such a project actually meant that Tito and Dimitrov confirmed the accusations of the West about the interference of the “pro-Soviet eastern bloc” in the internal affairs of Greece (at that time it was swept by a bloody civil war). The absence of Tito at a meeting in Moscow indirectly confirmed such predictions of Stalin. Soon they came true ...
At that time, Stalin’s frequent illnesses made it possible to slow down the work of creating a Slavic interstate confederation. It should also be noted that the most active and influential supporters of the NWSC project suddenly died, again, in the same years: A.A. Zhdanov (Stalin's actual successor) in 1948, Zhikitsa Iovanovich (leader of the anti-Titov opposition) and B.V. Asafiev in 1949, Vasil Kolarov (head of Bulgaria) in 1950, Clement Gottwald (head of Czechoslovakia) in 1953. Boleslav Berut was the one who “lasted” longer: he died suddenly in 1956, and in Moscow. It is also noteworthy that in the report of Malenkov to the XIX Congress of the CPSU (October 5 1952) nothing was said about the Slavic project; only Gottwald and Berut mentioned him, and the head of the Slavic Committee of the USSR was a delegate of the same congress without the right to speak.
Stalin was only at the first and last (5 and 14 of October) meetings, made a brief speech at the last. In his speech, too, there was not a word about the Slavic confederative project.
In the meantime, since 1955, the magazine Slavs began to come out once in two months, and from 1957, once a quarter. In July, 1958, A.S. Gundorov in a report to the CPSU Central Committee complained: “... The Slavic Committee is now contained in a“ canned ”form. Communication with the fraternal Slavic countries has been reduced to a minimum, the press bureau has been liquidated, political speeches are prohibited, etc. There remains only a connection with the Slavic emigration of America and Australia. The staff of the committee has been reduced to 5 people, and its presidium has been abolished. ” And - no answer ...
However, they "answered" in the autumn of the same year: from November 1958, they stopped publishing the magazine "Slavs".
Finally, in March 1962, the USSR Slavic Committee was disbanded: the CPSU Central Committee accused him of "promoting national exclusivity", "ignoring the decisions of the XX and XXII CPSU congresses" and "cringing before the cult of personality"
According to the Russian historian and publicist Nikolai Kikeshev, “the political function of the all-Slavic movement was especially evident at the end of the Great Patriotic War, when Europe was divided into spheres of influence, and the Soviet leadership set about creating a union of Slavic states. This policy received the full support of the leaders of Slavic countries, as well as delegates of the World Slavic Congress in Belgrade (December 1946). The Slavic Union was supposed to be the basis of the bloc of the people's democratic states of Central and Southeastern Europe ... ”. But later, "Soviet ideologues again decided to rely on the doctrine of proletarian internationalism." The use by the leadership of the USSR of the idea of Slavism for political purposes turned out to be possible, as N. Kikeshev believes, because this, one might say, phenomenon objectively existed and exists among the Slavic peoples already at the subconscious level.
So the new - “The Federal State of Russia and Belarus” - has been forgotten old. But this time for what stop?