Military Review

Stalin and NATO. Chronology of Events

In 4 on April 1949 of the year, 64 of a year ago, NATO was created against the USSR. And in fact, in the same period - the end of 1940's first half of 1950's. - 7 plans were developed for delivering atomic strikes on the USSR and its allies (plans "Boiler", "Chariotir", "Hafmun", "Dropshot", etc.). Accordingly, providing for the collapse of the USSR on 18-25 puppet "pseudo-states".

In order not to aggravate the division of Europe, the USSR, first, did not begin to create its analogue of NATO, limiting itself to bilateral agreements on mutual assistance with its allies. And secondly - up to the year 1954, he proposed to the West, although in vain, to sign a long-term or indefinite Peace Pact guaranteeing mutual non-aggression. We note, in this regard, that the “pro-Soviet” Warsaw Pact was proclaimed only on May 14 of the year 1955.

Until recently, many military-political documents of that period remained, as they say, behind the scenes. They confirm not only the purposiveness of the USSR’s peace-loving policy at the turn of 1940-1950-s, but also the successes of the USSR’s anti-NATO strategy in Northern and Central Europe, which are still evident today. Due to which many countries of strategic importance for the security of the USSR-Russia, and a number of other European states remain outside of NATO (Finland, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Ireland). To be more precise, we managed to achieve first of all the fact that in Scandinavia NATO had, and still remains, a “breach”, due to Sweden’s preservation of neutrality and friendly Soviet-Finnish relations, as well as Russian-Finnish relations today.

It is this “breach” that still interferes with NATO’s activities in the west and north-west of the now-former USSR.

In January-March, 1949, an active discussion took place between the USSR and Scandinavia about its possible participation in NATO. Moreover, against the background of the most important factors: the restoration of the Soviet military base in Porkkalla-Udd (the Baltic coast in southwestern Finland), the neutralization of the Finnish Aland Islands, which are essential for the security of the USSR, Finland and Sweden. And - the Soviet-Finnish Treaty of 1948 year of friendship and mutual assistance.

The USSR made every effort so that its neighboring Scandinavia was outside this block. As a result, Sweden refused to join NATO and from the Scandinavian military-political alliance, which she advocated in 1946-1949, was “tied” to NATO. But Norway, directly bordering the USSR, was subjected to much stronger pressure from the United States and Great Britain.

In a note dated 29 in January 1949 to the Government of Norway, the USSR stated that the proposed creation of NATO envisages the creation of bases for this bloc near the Soviet borders. Therefore, Norway was asked in that document whether it intends to join NATO and whether it will mean the creation of military bases on Norwegian territory. At the same time, through diplomatic channels the USSR proposed to create a North European neutrality zone, and Sweden put forward a similar idea with 1948.

Norway responded to this Soviet Note on February 1: it was stated that the Norwegian side “will never pursue an aggressive policy and create foreign military bases until Norway becomes the object of attack from outside, or it becomes the object of the threat of such an attack ... ". And in the Note from 5 in February 1949, the USSR proposed to Norway to conclude a long-term non-aggression pact - in the framework of the aforementioned idea of ​​the Pact of Peace. Soviet diplomats in Norway, Denmark and Iceland at that time set the example of Sweden, which refused to join NATO and did not consider the USSR a threat to its security, although the Soviet military base in Porkkalla-Udd was much closer to Sweden than to Norway, Denmark and Iceland. But Norway rejected the Soviet proposal.

According to reports, Swedish diplomats in other Scandinavian countries directly or indirectly supported the proposals of the USSR, as well as the idea of ​​the Pact of Peace. And at a meeting of the then leaders of European socialist countries (except Yugoslavia) in Moscow in mid-March 1949, Stalin said that “even if there is NATO, we will not respond by creating our own bloc. Because the split of Europe will worsen, in which Churchill falsely accuses us. With NATO or its individual countries, it will be necessary to seek non-aggression treaties to all the people's democratic countries of Europe. This may take many years, but it is necessary, and responding with the same bloc means helping America and Britain to provoke an “international” war with the USSR and its allies.

The fact that Sweden, Austria, Finland, Switzerland, Ireland and even small European countries (Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Liechtenstein) outside of NATO is strategically important.

Therefore, we must try to create something like the “anti-NATO” Pact of Peace in Europe with the participation of these countries, the USSR and its allies. It’s better to start with Northern Europe, where NATO has the biggest “shortage” - due to non-participation in the block of Sweden and Finland next to us ... ”(see, for example,“ Some documents of the Stalin Archives. Lenin-Stalin Museum in Tirana ”, Tirana, 1983, Russian language; “The Complete Works of I.V. Stalin in 35 Volumes”, Beijing-Tirana, 1977-1979, Russian Language, t.31).

But this line of Soviet policy in Europe was interrupted after the death of Stalin. And in 1955, the USSR early returned to Finland its military bases on the Hanko peninsula (Porkkalla-Udd) and, again, organized the Warsaw Pact.

We repeat that the USSR in the spring of 1949 did not succumb to the “temptation” to create its own similar unit. The answer was that in 1947-1949, the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries - except for Albania and Yugoslavia - signed “cross-border” treaties on friendship and mutual assistance. And in response to 16’s January 1949’s statement by the US Department of State on the upcoming creation of the North Atlantic military-political bloc of the Foreign Ministry (29 in January) and the USSR government (31 in March) made conciliatory statements, although disclosing the anti-Soviet character of this block, but calling for negotiations on mutual non-aggression, and, in a broader context, to the Covenant of Peace.

Responding to 31 in January 1949 of the questions of Kingsbury Smith, Director General of the European Division of the American Agency International News Service, Stalin said he was “ready to consider issuing a joint declaration with the US government confirming that neither government has the intention to resort to war against each other.

The government of the USSR could cooperate with the government of the United States in carrying out activities that are aimed at implementing the Peace Pact and leading to gradual disarmament ...

I will meet with US President G. Truman to conclude such a pact ”(Pravda, January 31, 1949) .. Joseph Stalin noted that he was ready to offer Moscow, Leningrad, Kaliningrad, Odessa, Yalta in the USSR, and also Poland or Czechoslovakia - at the discretion of the US President ”(Pravda, 2, 3 February 1949 of the year).

Truman did not respond defiantly to this appeal, but soon NATO was announced. But also 14 of October 1952, at the last XIX Congress of the CPSU for Stalin, and 17 of February 1953, during Stalin’s talk with the Ambassador of India to the USSR Kr. Menon, the head of the USSR, again spoke out for the Peace Pact with the United States and NATO.

But, as you know, as early as 18 on August 1948, the US National Security Council, headed by G. Truman, approved the US National Security Directive 20 / 1 “US Goals for Russia”, which, in particular, noted: “Our main goals for Russia, in essence, they all boil down to two: a) minimize the power and influence of Moscow; b) to carry out fundamental changes in the theory and practice of foreign policy, which the government adheres to, which is now in power in Russia ... It is primarily about making and keeping the Soviet Union politically, militarily and psychologically weak compared to external forces, being outside his control ... Perhaps to solve such problems one must be ready ... to strike at oil fields in Batumi and Baku, at the Donets Basin and at the industrial area beyond the Ural Mountains ... ”.

And further: “We must accept as an unconditional prerequisite that we will not conclude a peace treaty and not renew normal diplomatic relations with any regime in Russia in which any of the current Soviet leaders or persons who share their way of thinking will dominate ...

We must create automatic guarantees that ensure that even a non-communist and nominally friendly regime for us: a) does not have great military power; b) economically strongly depended on the outside world; .

Well, these goals, in the name of which NATO was created, are practically realized.

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:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 April 18 2013 06: 51
    Well, these goals, in the name of which NATO was created, are practically realized.

    Well, judging by the fact that NATO did not "dissolve itself" apparently either we do not know all the goals, or they have changed ...
    1. vilenich
      vilenich April 18 2013 07: 55
      Why dissolve such a convenient structure! The US in many cases uses it.
      1. S_mirnov
        S_mirnov April 18 2013 13: 50
        They invented a nifiga for themselves! To dissolve NATO, but so many people are feeding around and inside it! There is no enemy, it’s not a problem, they’ll come up with it! It’s like in our cities centers for the fight against extremism. There are no extremists, so you need to come up with, appoint from the homeless. What is now to live without prizes and medals?
  2. albert
    albert April 18 2013 07: 04
    They have one goal - world domination. And many more interfere with this. Russia, for example.
  3. fenix57
    fenix57 April 18 2013 07: 32
    Stalin was well aware that another "raid" of the USSR would not stand up and did EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to prevent this from happening. Although this "raid" happened imperceptibly and continues to this day ( id = 36).Personally, my opinion! ...
    1. luka095
      luka095 April 18 2013 16: 06
      Stalin was consistent - the USSR needed peace, not confrontation. And he did everything he could to achieve this goal.
      And the "raid" was carried out by the fifth column raised in the USSR after Stalin. Led by the US and NATO.
  4. radio operator
    radio operator April 18 2013 07: 49
    Say what you like, but Stalin pursued a more balanced policy, more in line with the interests of the country in the future.
  5. Dart weyder
    Dart weyder April 18 2013 08: 43
    well - they have achieved tremendous success in this field - the main thing is that something is not to the end! look and tear yourself ... or they don’t already know what kind of bitch they’ll hang themselves on, they’ll arrange it 9,11, then they will blow up something in Boston, then they will lose fear (because they have never had any conscience) they begin to provoke an open massacre in the Middle East - but will not burn out - oh, they will have to tight!
  6. Kaa
    Kaa April 18 2013 08: 49
    On August 25, 1952, a working conversation between I.V. Stalin and the French Ambassador L. Joxes took place. The ambassador, explaining Charles de Gaulle's attitude towards NATO, made it clear that his country considers the North Atlantic Pact as an exclusively peaceful alliance, not contradicting the UN Charter. "Stalin laughed and asked Vyshinsky who was present at the conversation if the USSR should join him in this case." According to the Russian researcher N.V. Kochkin, who specifically studied this issue on the basis of archival materials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it was not a simple irony, but rather, the hidden intentions of the Kremlin leader. (International Affairs, No. 1-2, 2009 A. Gromyko repeatedly and publicly declared in 1951: "If this pact was directed against the revival of German aggression, the USSR itself would have joined NATO."
    After the death of Stalin, in March 1954, Moscow sends a note to the governments of the United States, France and Great Britain. In it, in particular, it was said: “The Soviet government proceeds from the fact that the North Atlantic Treaty creates a closed grouping of states, ignores the task of preventing a new German aggression, and since the Great Powers that were members of the anti-Hitler coalition, only the USSR and the North Atlantic are not involved in this treaty. the treaty cannot but be regarded as an aggressive treaty directed against the Soviet Union. It is quite obvious that the organization of the North Atlantic Treaty could, under appropriate conditions, lose its aggressive character if all the great powers that were part of the anti-Hitler coalition became its participants. In accordance with this, the Soviet government expresses its readiness to consider, together with the governments concerned, the question of the participation of the USSR in the North Atlantic Treaty. ” An analysis of numerous projects, notes, and the entire inner kitchen of approvals suggests that the intentions of the USSR joining NATO were not propaganda. Moreover, there was a kind of compromise, a gesture towards Washington, designed to achieve a positive response. Moscow, which initiated the conclusion of a pan-European collective security treaty in Europe, did not exclude the United States from participating in the same note. It is noteworthy that already in the next, 1955 at the Geneva meeting of the heads of government of the four powers, the delegation of the USSR again put on the agenda the question of possible accession to NATO.
    Further history is known. The former allies of the USSR in the anti-Hitler coalition resolutely rejected all Moscow's proposals in a reply note.
    1. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker April 18 2013 14: 46
      Quote: Kaa

  7. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee April 18 2013 09: 00
    And once again I am convinced of the brilliant foresight of I.V. Stalin
  8. Canep
    Canep April 18 2013 09: 18
    a) minimize the power and influence of Moscow; b) to make fundamental changes in the theory and practice of foreign policy, which are adhered to by the government now in power in Russia ...

    These tasks were almost completed in the 90s.
  9. zambo
    zambo April 18 2013 09: 22
    Something like this...
  10. pinecone
    pinecone April 18 2013 09: 45
    On August 25, 1952, a working conversation between I.V. Stalin and the French Ambassador L. Joxes took place. The ambassador, explaining Charles de Gaulle's attitude towards NATO, made it clear that his country considers the North Atlantic Pact as an exclusively peaceful alliance, not contradicting the UN Charter.

    It is unclear why the ambassador of France in 1952 could. to clarify the attitude towards NATO of Charles de Gaulle, who at that time did not hold any public office.
    1. Strategia
      Strategia April 18 2013 19: 09
      It is necessary to represent the personality of de Gaulle, his authority in France.
  11. Bosk
    Bosk April 18 2013 10: 34
    It is necessary to submit an application for joining NATO to such countries as Iran, S. Korea, China and Russia ... I do not know what is waking up, but the rustle above is not weak.
    1. Ascetic
      Ascetic April 18 2013 22: 58
      Quote: Bosk
      It is necessary to submit an application for joining NATO to such countries as Iran, S. Korea, China and Russia ... I do not know what is waking up, but the rustle above is not weak.

      The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, once briefly and surprisingly accurately formulated the essence and purpose of the Alliance - "keep the US in (Europe), keep Germany under (control), keep Russia outside (Europe)"Nobody has canceled this formula until now. First of all, NATO is the only mechanism that ensures the political and direct military presence of the United States on the European continent. Lord Ismay spoke of this. And if there is no NATO, then Washington's presence on the European continent becomes, to put it mildly, incomprehensible. After all, the European Union does not climb on the American continent ... The idea of ​​"keeping Germany under control" assumed preventing the revival of Nazism. Whether the merit of NATO is that Germany decisively broke with the legacy of Nazism is a separate issue.
      Further, Lord Ismay's formula provides an answer to the profoundly naive question of domestic citizens (and even representatives of the expert community!): "Can Russia become a NATO member?" Of course not! This will be the collapse of Lord Ismay's formula. Russia should not be allowed into either NATO or Europe.
      exactly 55 years ago, on March 31, 1954, the USSR officially applied to join NATO. The West was horrified by the very posing of such a question. The answer to Moscow was clear and clear: "... There is no need to emphasize the absolutely unrealistic nature of such a proposal. It contradicts the very principles on which the defense and security system of Western states is built ...". Comments are unnecessary. After all, the USSR, by the mere fact of its existence, made NATO a legitimate organization in the eyes of Western taxpayers.
      And one more little remark: Lord Ismay used the word "Russia" in his formula, because, as we have already noted, it is a synonym for the Soviet Union. Today's Western inhabitants will not understand the psychological intricacies of translation. It is clear to them that even today Russia should not be allowed into Europe. Stereotypes are tenacious ...
      full source link
      1. Bosk
        Bosk April 19 2013 07: 35
        Maybe a new application ..., with a positive answer, NATO loses its meaning and this wakes up the beginning of a new organization (I hope more fair and democratic), and if it refuses ... NATO itself will discredit itself, which is also not a weak trump card for Russia ...
  12. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil April 18 2013 10: 56
    The day of the collapse of NATO will be the greatest event in the history of Europe after the Victory Day, I don’t understand why Europe still suffers American trash at home.
    1. Strategia
      Strategia April 18 2013 19: 15
      Quote: Standard Oil
      I don’t understand why in Europe they still endure American trash at home

      Money, dear, money is everywhere. They (Europeans) signed up to the Marshall plan and became gay Europeans. Without pain it is impossible to watch when at joint events Germans or French, even in private conversations, cannot speak their native language - only English. What have they brought the Fritzes, who instead of "yavol" say "okay" laughing
  13. krez-74
    krez-74 April 18 2013 11: 01
    The collapse of NATO will be, no doubt! And it will be accompanied by a big bang for those who enter this block ...
    SPIRITofFREEDOM April 18 2013 11: 16
    Therefore, you need to spin like a yule and revive their main allies
    Army and Navy!
    And cutting corruption is cruel.
    A hunchback or hang polonium!
    and over 90 years to prevent
    America - Enemy No. 1
    1. s1н7т
      s1н7т April 18 2013 22: 57
      Quote: SPIRITofFREEDOM
      America - Enemy No. 1

      Maybe, but in 91 I didn't see Americans in Moscow - more and more the future "middle class" headed by Yeltsin. And in 93 it was not the Abrams who shot the White House. So enemy number 1 is the lust for power and money. And we'll sort it out with America somehow laughing
      1. Denis
        Denis April 19 2013 03: 29
        Quote: c1n7
        So the enemy number 1 - a thirst for power and money
        This infection comes from the same place as NATO, hamburgers with cola and homosexual are different
    2. Firstvanguard
      Firstvanguard April 19 2013 04: 49
      Quote: SPIRITofFREEDOM

      A hunchback or hang polonium!

      Even arsenic is sorry for him negative , his ice ax, ice ax! angry
  15. nod739
    nod739 April 18 2013 11: 24
    Quote: Bosk
    It is necessary to submit an application for joining NATO to such countries as Iran, S. Korea, China and Russia ... I do not know what is waking up, but the rustle above is not weak.

    and at the same time !!!

    2 The collapse of NATO
    do not forget that in their hands a huge amount of weapons
    but in history there is no case when you have a weapon in your hands and do not use it. Collapse - fraught with war.
    Better not to collapse, but so that it slowly resolves itself in a few decades. but for this the economy should fall, but this needs to be helped with all our might, and not feed with raw materials
    1. stroporez
      stroporez April 18 2013 11: 59
      NATO --- this is cancer. It will not resolve itself, then cut nada ...........
  16. Snoop
    Snoop April 18 2013 12: 48
    North Atlantis still exists, despite assurances of self-dissolution in the event of the liquidation of the organization of the Warsaw Pact countries. And why should they destroy it in conditions of world hegemony?
  17. Black
    Black April 18 2013 13: 16
    In my opinion, the peoples of Russia may have complaints against Stalin in matters of domestic policy. Foreign policy of the USSR under the leadership of I.V. Stalin is just brilliant!
    1. s1н7т
      s1н7т April 18 2013 23: 12
      Quote: Chen
      the peoples of Russia may have claims against Stalin in matters of domestic politics.

      National republics - a reason for claims ?! The absence of even a hint of a "Chechen variant" is a reason for claims ?! "The peoples of Russia" live in which country? Stalin's "internal policy" made it possible for the "peoples of Russia" to survive - is that not enough? They wrote Chukhnu, sorry.
    2. Denis
      Denis April 19 2013 03: 34
      Quote: Chen
      claims to Stalin in matters of domestic policy
      Claims to the whisperers-exposers or without claims to the lantern!
      Everyone is screaming about repression, but have they touched many?
      I know about my relatives that I was in criminal cases. So don’t steal, or don’t get caught
  18. Vtel
    Vtel April 18 2013 14: 00
    The ideology of NATO is predatory. The backbone of NATO is the Yankees with the Saxons and Nemchuki, and the rest are cowardly sticks and shit-eaters with a blue tint. They can not defeat Russia - God is with us!
    1. Denis
      Denis April 19 2013 03: 37
      Quote: Vtel
      These seem to be well-trained, especially not spiteful
      Yes, and not before them now, immigrants tortured
  19. Tartary
    Tartary April 18 2013 14: 26
    Quote: Vtel
    The ideology of NATO is predatory. The backbone of NATO is the Yankees with the Saxons and Nemchuki, and the rest are cowardly sticks and shit-eaters with a blue tint. They can not defeat Russia - God is with us!

    God is with us and four machine guns ...
  20. djon3volta
    djon3volta April 18 2013 19: 21
    hamsters, FAS !!!
  21. Rrv
    Rrv April 18 2013 21: 33
    NATO-NATO ...
    1. Rrv
      Rrv April 18 2013 21: 34
      Or maybe you should?
  22. Rrv
    Rrv April 18 2013 21: 37
    After all, no matter who we are, right?
    1. apro
      apro April 19 2013 00: 45
      Russian do not confuse yourself with the Soviet difference is big.
      1. Rrv
        Rrv April 19 2013 00: 52
        And what is the difference? )))
      2. Corsair5912
        Corsair5912 April 19 2013 21: 35
        It makes no difference, I am a Russian Soviet officer and a sniper with combat experience. So far, I have not lost the qualifications of an officer and a sniper, from any weapon into a watermelon without optics I get from a hundred meters. My middle brother is a paratrooper, a younger tanker.
        My son is a military intelligence officer with combat experience in the war in Chechnya, nephews of air defense and strategic missile forces officers are also experienced.
        In peacetime, we are all highly qualified specialists, builders, miners, energy. And there are tens of millions of people like us in Russia.
  23. Rrv
    Rrv April 19 2013 22: 44
    So I say no good
  24. Denis
    Denis 9 May 2013 00: 11
    This is a real story, it happened in the 90s, it was told by one official from RAOEES.
    Chubais and Kiriyenko (then prime minister) were present at the solemn laying of the foundation of the power plant. With all the crowd of people, Chubais suddenly removes the golden Patek Philip from his hand and throws it into liquid concrete! Like, such a tradition, luckily! Kiriyenko has nothing to do, he also takes off his no less expensive watch and also throws it into the liquid concrete.
    What a surprise Kiriyenko was when in the evening at a banquet he again sees an expensive watch on Chubais’s hand!
    - How so? !!
    - Yes, very simple. Am I, throwing real watches into concrete? I bought Chinese yesterday at the airport, at the kiosk, for 100 rubles, what difference does it make!
    Kiriyenko was silent all evening, was sad ...
    sly stzzoko, Joseph Visarionych is clearly not enough