Knowledge stories can save whole nations, whole countries can die because of not knowing it. Today, for the overwhelming majority of Russian citizens, it is obvious that in Syria the United States and its allies are diligently trying to organize a military conflict. They are trying to plunge the whole Middle East region into war and chaos. Their goal and their method can be formulated very briefly.
"... Recognize our domination voluntarily, and then everything will be in order, otherwise war is inevitable."
Who so accurately described the essence of Western policy?
Comrade Stalin said these words 67 years ago.
Said in response to the famous Churchill's Fulton SpeechSir Winston delivered (without being the prime minister of Britain) in the US city of Fulton 5 March 1946 of the year.
A week later, Stalin replied to Churchill. If you want to understand the modern policy of the Anglo-Saxons, read the interview with the head of the USSR, given almost seven decades ago.
Nothing changed. The same countries, the same goals, the same methods.
In a nutshell, I recall the historical background.
- July 1944 of the year - In the American city of Bretton Wood, contracts were signed that make the dollar "lord of the world." The USSR signs an agreement.
- September 1945 of the year - the end of the Second World War;
- December 1945 of the year - ratification of the Bretton Woods agreements, the USSR refuses to ratify, refuses to give its sovereignty in the hands of the United States and Great Britain;
- March 1946 of the year - Churchill's Fulton speech, the beginning of the Cold War, the “iron curtain” is lowered by the Anglo-Saxons, the beginning of the confrontation of the West with the USSR on all the “fronts” of the planet. At that time, Britain is an official ally of the Soviet Union, which gives Churchill the character of an ultimatum.
Stalin's response to Churchill's Fulton speech
("Truth", 14 March 1946 of the Year)
The other day, one of the Pravda correspondents turned to Comrade. Stalin was asked to clarify a number of issues related to the speech of Mr. Churchill. Tov. Stalin gave appropriate explanations, which are given below in the form of answers to questions from the correspondent.
Question. How do you assess the last speech of Mr. Churchill, delivered by him in the United States of America?
Answer. I regard it as a dangerous act designed to sow the seeds of discord between the Allied states and impede their cooperation.
Question. Can it be considered that Mr. Churchill’s speech harms the cause of peace and security?
Answer. Definitely yes. In fact, Mr. Churchill now takes the position of warmongers. And Mr. Churchill is not alone here - he has friends not only in England, but also in the United States of America. It should be noted that Mr. Churchill and his friends are strikingly reminiscent in this respect of Hitler and his friends. Hitler started the war by proclaiming racial theory, declaring that only people who speak German represent a full-fledged nation. Mr. Churchill also begins the cause of unleashing war with a racial theory, arguing that only the nations that speak English are full-fledged nations, called upon to decide the fate of the whole world. German racial theory led Hitler and his friends to the conclusion that the Germans, as the only fully-fledged nation, should rule over 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 nations, should dominate the rest of the nations of the world.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Churchill and his friends in England and the United States are presenting to nations that do not speak English a kind of ultimatum: recognize our domination voluntarily, and then everything will be all right, otherwise war is inevitable. But nations shed their blood during five years of brutal war for the freedom and independence of their countries, and not in order to replace Hitler rule with Churchill rule. Therefore, it is likely that nations that do not speak English and constitute at the same time the vast majority of the world's population will not agree to go into new slavery.
The tragedy of Mr. Churchill is that he, like an inveterate Tory, does not understand this simple and obvious truth.
There is no doubt that the installation of Mr. Churchill is an installation for war, a call for war with the USSR. It is also clear that this installation of Mr. Churchill is incompatible with the existing union treaty between England and the USSR. True, in order to confuse readers, Mr. Churchill states in passing that the term of the Soviet-English agreement on mutual assistance and cooperation could well be extended to 50 years. But how to combine this statement of Mr. Churchill with his installation on the war with the USSR, with his preaching of the war against the USSR? It is clear that these things can not be combined. And if Mr. Churchill, who calls for war with the Soviet Union, at the same time considers it possible to extend the term of the Anglo-Soviet treaty to 50 years, it means that he views this treaty as an empty piece of paper, which he needs only to cover it and disguise their anti-Soviet installation. Therefore, one cannot take seriously the false statements made by Mr. Churchill's friends in England about extending the term of the Soviet-English treaty to 50 and more years. Extension of the contract does not make sense if one of the parties violates the contract and turns it into an empty piece of paper.
Question. How do you assess that part of Mr. Churchill's speech, where he attacks the democratic system of our neighboring European states and where he criticizes the good-neighborly relations established between these states and the Soviet Union?
Answer. This part of Mr. Churchill's speech is a mixture of elements of slander with elements of rudeness and tactlessness. Mr. Churchill asserts that “Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest, Sofia - all these famous cities and the population in their areas are in the Soviet sphere and all are subject in one form or another not only to Soviet influence, but also to a large extent to the increasing control of Moscow. " Mr. Churchill qualifies all of this as the borderless "expansionist tendencies" of the Soviet Union.
It does not take much effort to show that Mr. Churchill rudely and unceremoniously slanders both Moscow and the neighboring states of the USSR. First, it is completely absurd to talk about the exclusive control of the USSR in Vienna and Berlin, where there are Allied Control Councils from representatives of four states, and the USSR has only of the votes. It happens that other people can not slander, but you still need to know when to stop. Secondly, we must not forget the following circumstance. The Germans invaded the USSR through Finland, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary. The Germans could invade through these countries because in these countries there were then governments hostile to the Soviet Union. As a result of the German invasion, the Soviet Union irretrievably lost in fights with the Germans, as well as thanks to the German occupation and the hijacking of the Soviet people in German penal servitude, about seven million people. In other words, the Soviet Union was lost by people several times more than England and the United States of America combined. It is possible that in some places these colossal sacrifices of the Soviet people, which ensured the liberation of Europe from the Hitlerite yoke, are prone to oblivion. But the Soviet Union cannot forget about them. The question is, what can be surprising is that the Soviet Union, wishing to protect itself for the future, is trying to ensure that there are governments in these countries that are loyal to the Soviet Union? How can you, without going mad, qualify these peaceful aspirations of the Soviet Union as expansionist tendencies of our state?
Mr. Churchill further argues that "the Polish government, which was under Russian domination, was encouraged to make enormous and unjust attacks against Germany." There is not a word here, a rude and insulting slander. Modern democratic Poland is led by outstanding people. They proved in practice that they know how to protect the interests and dignity of the homeland in the way their predecessors did not. What is Mr. Churchill's reason to assert that the leaders of present-day Poland can allow in their own country the "domination" of representatives of any foreign states? Is it not because of this that Mr. Churchill is slandering the “Russians” that he intends to sow the seeds of discord in relations between Poland and the Soviet Union? ..
Mr. Churchill is displeased that Poland has made a turn in its policy towards friendship and alliance with the USSR. There was a time when elements of conflicts and contradictions prevailed in the relations between Poland and the USSR. This circumstance made it possible for statesmen like Mr. Churchill to play on these contradictions, to pick up Poland under the guise of protection from Russians, to intimidate Russia with the specter of war between her and Poland, and to preserve the position of arbitrator. But this time is a thing of the past, because the enmity between Poland and Russia has given way to friendship between them, and Poland, modern democratic Poland, does not want to be a playing ball in the hands of foreigners. It seems to me that it is precisely this circumstance that causes Mr. Churchill to irritation and pushes him to rude, tactless antics against Poland. It's no joke to say: he is not allowed to play for someone else's account ...
As for Mr. Churchill’s attacks on the Soviet Union, in connection with the expansion of Poland’s western borders at the expense of Polish territories captured in the past by the Germans, here it seems to me that he is clearly distorting the maps. As is known, the decision on the western borders of Poland was taken at the Berlin Conference of the Three Powers on the basis of the demands of Poland. The Soviet Union has repeatedly stated that it considers the demands of Poland correct and fair. It is likely that Mr. Churchill is unhappy with this decision. But why Mr. Churchill, not sparing the arrows against the position of the Russians on this issue, hides from his readers the fact that the decision was made at the Berlin Conference unanimously that not only Russians, but also British and Americans voted for the decision? Why did Mr. Churchill need to mislead people?
Mr. Churchill argues further that “the communist parties, which were very small in all these Eastern European states, have achieved exceptional strength far outnumbered, and seek to establish totalitarian control everywhere, the police governments prevail in almost all these countries and to the present time, with the exception of Czechoslovakia, there is no genuine democracy in them. ”
As you know, in England today the state is ruled by one party, the Labor Party, and the opposition parties are deprived of the right to participate in the British government. This is what Mr. Churchill calls genuine democracy. In Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Hungary, a bloc of several parties - from four to six parties - controls, and the opposition, if it is more or less loyal, is guaranteed the right to participate in the government. Mr. Churchill calls this totalitarianism, tyranny, police rule. Why, on what grounds, do not expect an answer from Mr. Churchill. Mr. Churchill does not understand in what a ridiculous position he places himself with his loud speeches about totalitarianism, tyranny, police rule.
Mr. Churchill would like Poland to be ruled by Sosnkowski and Anders, Yugoslavia by Mikhailovich and Pavelic, Romania by Prince Stirbei and Radescu, Hungary and Austria by some king from the House of Hapsburg, etc. Mr. Churchill wants to assure us that these gentlemen from the fascist gateway can provide "genuine democracy." Such is Mr. Churchill's "democracy".
Mr. Churchill wanders around the truth when he talks about the growing influence of the communist parties in Eastern Europe. It should, however, be noted that it is not entirely accurate. The influence of the communist parties grew not only in Eastern Europe, but in almost all European countries where fascism previously dominated (Italy, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Finland) or where German, Italian or Hungarian occupation took place (France, Belgium, Holland, Norway , Denmark, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece, the Soviet Union, etc.).
The growing influence of the Communists can not be considered an accident. It is a completely natural phenomenon. The influence of the communists grew because in the difficult years of the domination of fascism in Europe, the communists turned out to be reliable, courageous, selfless fighters against the fascist regime for the freedom of nations. Mr. Churchill sometimes recalls in his speeches about “ordinary people from small houses”, lordly patting them on the shoulder and pretending to be their friend. But these people are not as simple as it may seem at first glance. They, “ordinary people”, have their own views, their own politics, and they know how to stand up for themselves. It was they, millions of these “ordinary people,” who had dabbed Mr. Churchill and his party in England, casting their votes for the Laborites. It was they, millions of these “ordinary people”, who isolated reactionaries in Europe, supporters of cooperation with fascism, and preferred left-wing democratic parties. It was they, millions of these “ordinary people” who, having experienced the communists in the fire of struggle and resistance to fascism, decided that the communists fully deserve the trust of the people. This is how the influence of the communists grew in Europe. Such is the law of historical development.
Of course, Mr. Churchill does not like this development of events, and he sounded the alarm, appealing to force. But he also did not like the appearance of the Soviet regime in Russia after the First World War. He also sounded the alarm and organized a military campaign of the “14 states” against Russia, setting himself the goal of turning back the wheel of history. But the story turned out to be stronger than Churchill's intervention, and Churchill's quixotic habits led to the fact that he suffered a complete defeat. I do not know whether Mr. Churchill and his friends will succeed in organizing a new campaign against “Eastern Europe” after World War II. But if they succeed, which is unlikely, because millions of “ordinary people” are guarding the affairs of the world, then it can be said with confidence that they will be beaten just like they were in the past, 26 years ago.