Military Review

CIA agents are attacking "Soviet objects." From Cold War history

13
CIA agents are attacking "Soviet objects." From Cold War history

The victory of the Red Army at Stalingrad was a signal for the countries of Latin America. The leading states of the region began to establish, and in some cases to restore diplomatic relations with Russia. The initiative came from Latin Americans. Despite the difficulties of wartime, in 1943-1946. USSR embassies were opened in Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and Argentina. President Roosevelt was loyal to the appearance of Soviet missions on the continent. In May 1943 I.V. Stalin dissolved the Comintern, demonstrating to the allies that the new historical conditions, this organization will not be used as a channel for "exporting revolution".

However, even before Churchill's Fulton speech, delivered by 5 in March 1946, the United States foreign policy became inevitable and threatening to slide onto the rails of the Cold War with Russia. Gradually, the formulas used by the propaganda of the United States to expose totalitarianism of Nazi Germany began to be transferred to the USSR. He was accused of splitting Europe, of building an “iron curtain”, of carrying out secret expansion plans. The strategy of countering the Soviet Union was formulated firmly by Washington and London: “Russians respect only strength”, therefore, it is possible to find mutual understanding with Russia only “on the basis of the military strength of the English-speaking commonwealth”. That is, from the position of ultimatums, the arms race, the unilateral possession of atomic weapons as the main argument for "curbing" Moscow. “Information leaks” confirmed: plans for atomic bombing of targets in Russia exist. Dozens of cities to be destroyed by the example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Moscow understood that the confrontational policy of President Harry Truman was aimed at restricting the Soviet presence in various parts of the world, and above all in the Western Hemisphere. In an effort to get rid of "Soviet observers" in Latin America, the United States launched such a powerful propaganda campaign "to expose the subversive activities of the Soviets" on the continent, that it surpassed all that was done in the field of propaganda during the years of the struggle against Hitler Germany. The countries south of the Rio Grande — the “backyard of the United States” —would have been completely cleared of Soviet embassies, trade missions, and cultural centers! To solve this problem, they sent American diplomats, FBI employees who were engaged in intelligence work in Latin America during the war, and created by the CIA in 1947.

The Soviet Embassy in Santiago de Chile was shelled in the early morning hours of October 10 1947. The fire was fired from a car through the windows of the 2-th floor. Eleven bullets from the Thompson submachine gun were found in the walls. Several holes received the emblem of the Soviet Union over the main entrance. The right-wing pro-American press gloated: "This is a reaction to attempts to turn Chile into a subversive outpost of the USSR on the continent." A week later, at the opening of the traditional agricultural exhibition, a group of latifundists organized a demonstration under the slogans “No to Communism”, “Down with Ambassador Zhukov”, “Down with Russia”. The Soviet representatives were forced to leave the exhibition, accompanied by the Director of Protocol of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile and the police. A telegram about the situation around the embassy was sent to Moscow: "Rumors about the intention of the government of Gabriel Videla in the near future to sever diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union are circulating more actively." Soon, Ambassador Zhukov was summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, and he was handed the appropriate note. Diplomats were given three days to wind up. The Soviet Embassy in this country existed 1 year 5 months and 25 days.

A day later, on October 11, the apartment of the Secretary of the USSR Embassy in Mexico Ivan Kumaryan was shelled at the apartment of the 3. He himself was on a business trip, and his wife and two children witnessed the attack. They just went down to the first floor, to the dining room, and shelling was carried out on the bedroom window. The diplomat's wife managed to see how two men ran along the fence with revolvers in their hands. In December, the 17 of the second, the attack was repeated. Kumarian and his wife were at this time at a diplomatic reception, the children were at home. I had to quickly move to the embassy. Ambassador Alexander Kapustin received instructions from Moscow to make an “oral presentation” of the Mexican Foreign Ministry and to demand an investigation into the incidents. The ambassador was recommended to agree with the Mexicans that the information about the shelling should not become the property of the press: Moscow did not want too much propaganda hype, knowing full well who is seeking it. A representative of the Directorate of the Secret Police, who was investigating the “state of emergency”, shared his thoughts with Kumaryan: “In this case, political motives are visible. If they wanted to kill you, they would have lurched when you return home from the service, and would shoot at you, not at the windows. These people wanted to cause a scandal, and these were, I suspect, not Mexicans. ” When asked who he suspects, the investigator answered in English: "I don't know."

The Soviet mission in Havana was fired on 20 on April 1948. At least a dozen shots were fired from a passing car through the building. Two bullets hit the envoy’s apartment, one into the wall of the reception hall. There were no casualties: the staff were on political information. The head of the police station appeared in the mission half an hour after the shelling. He stated that he would conduct an investigation, but did not promise quick results. According to the information received from the friends of the mission in the police, the attack was organized by the “Union of veterans of the World War 2”, which was “under maintenance” of the US Embassy. New provocations against the mission were marked by 16 and 21 in August. The method is the same: shelling from a car. Marked mainly in the window. As it turned out, the August attacks were organized by the Anti-Communist League, created by Cuba’s former deputy police chief, Dias Verson. A few days before the shelling, he met with a representative of American intelligence on McNamara Island. The last provocation against the mission was carried out on 10 on April 1951. On the balcony of the main building from the street they threw a bomb that did not work because of the poor-quality fuse. The police defused the "hellish car." The white émigré Andrei Golovchenko was suspected in this attack, who in 1947 was declared the head of the “Russian government in exile”. Announced on the initiative of the Society of Friends of the United States.

The dictator F. Batista, who seized power in a coup d'état on the night of 9 on 10 in March of 1952, immediately declared that he would make every effort to "suppress communist penetration" in Cuba. On March 21, police agents staged a provocation at the airport, trying to detain two Soviet diplomats and, contrary to international law, to inspect their luggage. Soviet couriers opposed this and returned to Mexico. The diplomatic mail did not enter the mission, and its activity was in fact blocked. The Batista government has not given an explanation of the reasons for the cruel treatment of the Soviet couriers. On April 2, the representative of the Soviet mission in Havana presented a note to the Cuban Foreign Minister about the break of diplomatic relations. In an interview with American journalists, Batista said: "I broke off relations with Russia, as you - in the USA - wanted it."

The provocations organized by the CIA officers through agents in the police forces eventually led to a breakdown in relations with the Soviet Union of Brazil (1947), Colombia (1948) and Venezuela (1952). The pressure of Washington was able to resist Mexico, Uruguay and Argentina. The first two countries already broke off relations with Soviet Russia in 1930 and 1934 respectively. To resort again to such a radical method of terminating relations would be an obvious search. In Argentina, the US ambassador repeatedly tried to persuade Juan Peron to "get rid of the Soviet representation." The president did away with these attempts simply: he publicly suggested that the Americans be the first to set an example and close the USSR Embassy in Washington. Such words by Peron are often quoted: “We will not carry chestnuts out of the fire for anyone.”

Alexander Sizonenko, a well-known expert on Russian-Latin American relations, rightly noted that “in the context of the Cold War and the attempts of the Western powers to isolate and weaken the USSR, the Soviet leadership was looking for ways to rectify the situation and improve its relations with various countries”. The meeting of I.Stalin with the ambassador of Argentina L. Bravo 7 in February 1953 of the year became in many respects significant. A.Sizonenko correctly interpreted the position of the Soviet leader: “Stalin was looking for opportunities not only to expand and intensify relations with Argentina itself, whose president H. Peron often then criticized the American course, but also tried to break the cold war chains through this country. least in Latin America. " (1)

Contrary to the special operations of the FBI and the CIA on the continent - I will add myself. One should not think that the United States in the new historical conditions, having won the Cold War, favorably treat the growth of activity in the Latin American continent of Russian diplomacy and Russian entrepreneurs. The US intelligence agencies are keeping under vigilant control all aspects of this activity. And if necessary, they use their wealth of experience of provocations, sabotage and propaganda manipulations to compromise the “return of Russia to Latin America” declared several years ago ...

(1) https://sites.google.com/site/latinoamerikanistika/arhiv-nomerov/2007-2/a-i-sizonenko-otnosenia-sssr-so-stranami-latinskoj-ameriki-v-1941---1945-godah
Author:
Originator:
http://www.fondsk.ru
13 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Yarbay
    Yarbay 1 December 2012 09: 25
    -6
    *** One should not think that the USA in the new historical conditions, having won the Cold War, is sympathetic to the growth of activity of Russian diplomacy and Russian businessmen on the Latin American continent. US intelligence agencies keep vigilant control of all aspects of this activity. ** - while the amers are engaged in the third world war with Islam, Latin American countries can go up!
    1. orfo
      orfo 1 December 2012 18: 57
      +4
      I agree about the Latin countries, but somehow not very much about the war with Islam, "you cannot win, lead" ...
  2. Lech e-mine
    Lech e-mine 1 December 2012 09: 30
    +4
    Well, I can’t agree that the Yankees won the Cold War. Rather, our people did not want to continue the arms race and keep the INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION OF THE SSR on their neck.
    Americans also got from our agents if you carefully look at the history of SPECIAL SERVICES.
    1. yurayurayura
      yurayurayura 1 December 2012 13: 06
      +2
      the more valuable their victory, if there are still those who doubt it. This fact is quite convincingly argued by Evgeny Fedorov.
    2. Klibanophoros
      Klibanophoros 1 December 2012 13: 24
      +7
      And having laid down their arms, the Russians did not understand that the struggle against the post-Soviets did not end, it just now goes on one gate.
      On our neck we still contain all the same Asians, they just now captivated all the Russian cities and towns. If anyone does not remember, Central Asia used to provide resources in huge quantities, but now nothing at all, sliding into the darkness of the Middle Ages.
    3. bart74
      bart74 2 December 2012 01: 10
      +1
      No, I do not agree with you. The USSR lost in the Cold War and therefore ceased to exist. Remember who the first to call Yeltsinson? Correctly! President of the United States! Does this tell you anything? And no need to answer for all the people. A referendum was held in which more than 90% of citizens expressed a desire to preserve the USSR. You do not know this - ONCE! And you don’t know that the USSR is a small copy of the RUSSIAN EMPIRE, it’s TWO! Take an interest in the history of your country, and do not take responsibility to be responsible for all the people!
      1. Lech e-mine
        Lech e-mine 2 December 2012 04: 47
        -1
        Wise guy do not fool me. I expressed my opinion. IF IT DOESN'T YOU LIKE THIS IS YOUR PROBLEMS.
        If you think that the USSR LOSED the Cold War, that’s your right — raise your HANDS UP and stomp Americans to lick your ass.
        As for the story, many people called the President of the United States and what of it.
        I didn’t call him and you don’t assume the role of the JUDGE to consider me a loser.
    4. vikontas56
      vikontas56 2 December 2012 01: 35
      +2
      In a referendum in 91, the people just voted to preserve the INTERNATIONAL UNION OF THE SSR! But in the Bialowieza Forest the Union was not destroyed by the people, but those whom the people entrusted to save it, and they wanting to gain more personal power destroyed it!
    5. homosum20
      homosum20 2 December 2012 14: 15
      0
      And no one asked our people. Did you speak out for the collapse of the ruble, the destruction of industry, the destruction of the Warsaw Treaty, the collapse of the country, American advisers?
      Tagged sold us chokh. Now he is being honored in London by the whole world. Grateful. There is a reason.
  3. omsbon
    omsbon 1 December 2012 10: 08
    +7
    SPECIAL SERVICES WAR DOESN'T STOP never .
    In my unenlightened view, this war will not end in the foreseeable future, so we must confront the amers boldly and boldly.
  4. Nicotine 7
    Nicotine 7 1 December 2012 15: 27
    +2
    I want to note that the word “America” in Latinos is associated only with the Uses, and the attitude towards them is far from friendly, although formally they are all in one block. But this is already politics. And where did you see that politicians would reflect the opinion of the people?
    1. survivor
      survivor 2 December 2012 11: 41
      0
      and everywhere.
  5. Farvil
    Farvil 2 December 2012 00: 08
    +2
    As long as there is Russia, then the opposition of the Anglo-Saxons will continue, it’s not the USSR, it’s a different spiritual culture, much better than their consumption culture. We are just different.
  6. bart74
    bart74 2 December 2012 01: 20
    +1
    The confrontation with arrogant Saxons has a very long history. Russia had a plan to go to the oceans, to the Bosphorus, to the Yellow Sea. Therefore, there were so many wars with Turkey. And remember who always supported the Turks. Whose fleet in the raid prevented Russian troops from occupying Istanbul? And who armed, and then set the Japs on us, when we already had access to the Yellow Sea, an ice-free harbor and base (Port Arthur). The truth was the victory of Russian weapons. TURKESTAN (Central Asia). This is where we hit them on the nose, ahead of their penetration into Central Asia. If this happened, I don’t even know how history would have turned.
  7. survivor
    survivor 2 December 2012 11: 40
    0
    what to say then? the cold war is rapidly growing into a hot one. the thaw that the labeled and EBN had in relations with the United States was just a truce, but not to grow into the world, but to destroy the army and navy through the corrupt government. failed to destroy, but weaken, significantly. in addition, all the prerequisites were laid for the national hatred of the republics of the former USSR towards their neighbors, which served as another guarantee that the USSR would not be returned. we simply quarreled. Now the army of Russia is a weak shadow of the army of the USSR, both in the human and in the material component. personally, the yen does not even have a shadow of doubt that the enemy is rapidly approaching our borders with the goal of further aggression. under the USSR, America did not have a single, no matter how much, significant contingent of forces, close to the borders of the USSR, capable of conducting military operations on the territory of the USSR. Now, after the fall of Libya, aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia. plans to wage war against Russia from all directions, only Syria and Iran interfere. the seizure of these countries will lead to the complete isolation of Russia with its not many and for the frequent, obviously militarily weak allies. the next steps are the field of blockade, visible without an armed eye. I repeat, understanding that it will be necessary to fight not only with the army and navy and in connection with the vast territory, the attack will be conducted from all sides. not for nothing that many republics of the former USSR are given promises of joining NATO. The American government urgently needs skirmishers, cannon fodder to start hostilities, when the Russian army can still provide significant resistance.The likelihood of the destruction of the armies of these republics by parts of the Russian army is very high, since Russia still managed to keep the army in a larger order than its neighbors. In this way, three questions are solved at once: a) bleeding in the human and material reserves of the Russian army. (regardless of the result of the aggression of the first echelon, the army is wasting ammunition, equipment is out of order, human potential is significantly depleted. If we add to this not the popularity of the armed forces among the people, the human reserve will become even smaller, and if we take into account the facts of the destruction of stockpiles of weapons and ammunition, then replenishing losses in equipment and ammunition will be extremely difficult. The destruction of small arms will lead to the impossibility of organizing partisan movement behind enemy lines.) b) sharp reduction of losses among second-tier troops consisting of the army units of NATO countries directly (Great Britain, France, Germany, etc.). c) minimization of losses of US troops. (since with the introduction of the third tier, in which the US forces will enter, the resistance should be completely or almost completely suppressed .....
    in short, the scenario of the end of the First World War.
    Latin American countries are likely to be denied admission or restricted to dividing the tidbit. that’s why they now give them the opportunity to some liberties. while NATO and America in particular, have completely different plans and directions.
  8. homosum20
    homosum20 2 December 2012 16: 35
    +3
    As long as socialism existed, there was an illusion that the antagonism between the Western world and Russia exists because of ideological differences. 20 years have passed without ideological contradictions. I can only speak for myself:
    during this time I traveled to Europe, was in America. I saw only one reason - despite the outward similarity, we are different. The principles on which our worldviews are based do not just differ - in many ways (and very important: a look at the role of women, the role of men, how to raise children - these are very important, fundamental questions) they contradict each other. Their views contradict the foundations of Slavic culture.
    I personally see the reason mainly in one. The entire Western world is almost assimilated by American culture.
    How was America formed? Runaways, criminals from all over the world, asocial elements who are unable to fit into society, people who abandoned their homeland for the opportunity to earn more (migrants from Germany, France, Russia, England - by no means starving countries according to the then priests), i.e. people who are completely devoid of passionarity, with a weakened sense of affection for their relatives, the country are not the best members of society.
    And life is not a new place — survival by pushing those living nearby, the destruction of an entire nation (Indians), absorption of slavery as an integral part of life — could not but affect the formation of spiritual values. And not for the better. As a result, the formation is absolutely inflexible in terms of the assimilation of other cultural values. For example, blacks never assimilated with the Anglo-Saxon culture of whites. Hence the need for first political correctness, then tolerance. Wherever American culture comes, it is either rejected or crowded out. Her vitality is based on the maximal primitivism of everything that relates to the inner world of man, morality, etc. (Damaged parties to the creators). But everything related to business, money, jurisprudence - everything is very developed and is trying to replace the human aspects of life itself (juvenile justice, gender equality, LGBT rights).
    Given the above, the combination of 2 cultures - ours and American - is impossible. Thus, at the place of ideological confrontation, a much deeper, cultural and value emerged.
    A more primitive culture is always more aggressive. This is because it, most often, is directed not at the person, but at the outside world. And to develop, expand can only go there. And because of its dominant materiality, it does it materially - capturing territories, resources, etc.
    Our culture is largely directed towards the interior of man, towards his development. If the American proverb says: "If you are so smart, why not rich?", For us the presence of capital or power is not yet a sign of intelligence and perfection. Although the younger generation in the Duma has already adapted to American values.
    Reconciliation of these two cultural paradigms is impossible. What the Americans understand very well. And some of us do not understand very well.
    The conclusion is disappointing. If two cultures cannot assimilate, while one of them is aggressive, in the end there will remain, at best, one.
    By the way, something similar is observed in relation to Chinese and American cultures.
    Both our and Chinese culture are largely non-domestic values ​​and are largely compatible. What is the basis for hope.
    I apologize for the boring, but I could not state this question in short
  9. enkor
    enkor 2 December 2012 18: 45
    0
    Traitors with geeks handed over the USSR. Looking today at the shit-mongrel snouts of these creatures - it is clear to a normal person that all this is a bunch of corrupt liberal-toleraists, etc. etc.