The second half of 40-s, despite the cherished aspirations of the people, was not a period of further development of the potential cooperation of allied states, but first a sharp cooling of relations between the victorious powers, and then drawing them into a long and exhausting cold war.
According to the doctor of historical sciences Valentin Falin, the main change in the international situation after the end of the Second World War was precisely the further and sharp deepening of the disastrous split of the world that began in 1917 in the year into two opposing socio-political blocs. The world divided into two camps soon after the end of World War II, and the Iron Curtain fell between them. Who lowered him, who initiated this split of humanity?
He was tormented by "black dogs"
As is known, the beginning of the public rupture of the allied, friendly relations of the West with the East (that is, with the USSR and socialist countries) and the signal for the beginning of the Cold War put Churchill's famous speech, delivered on March 5 in Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, USA.
Churchill’s decisions, his extravagant actions, the ease with which he so abruptly replaced his unusual mercy with unlimited anger against the Kremlin, cannot be understood without disregarding the features of the psyche of this English political heavyweight.
Sir Winston, many experts agree, for a long time, and especially at the end of a political career, all signs of manic-depressive disorder were present, when periods of violent and quite effective activity are interspersed with immersions into a deep depression. At the same time, the British aristocrat was fully aware of the reasons for this not so rare variability and called the attacks of his depression "the times of black dogs."
These same "black dogs" and tormented the personality of Sir Winston after the inglorious resignation from the post of British premier of July 27 1945 of the year. But during the autumn - winter 1945 / 46 years, Churchill overcame the depression - almost drove his "black dogs". And no matter what he did on a well-deserved rest - he took backdating honors for the victory over Nazism, traveled, sprinkled little by little memoirs, practiced in art, painted watercolors - all his thoughts were occupied with only one thing - an indispensable return to big politics, and most importantly ... struggle with hated Russia.
"I deeply admire and honor the valiant Russian people"
By the way, when it comes to Russophobia of large (and small) European, American, and other politicians with them, they usually do not very elegant curtsy: they say, no, they certainly love and respect the great Russian people, they appreciate excellent Russian culture, but they reject, categorically reject the political regime in Russia.
At the same time, which is characteristic, whatever its political coloration, this regime is monarchical, democratic, communist, etc. - “Well-wishers” from abroad will certainly want to either weaken it as much as possible, or destroy it altogether.
And since any political regime, even such a harsh one as Stalin’s, relies not only on bayonets, but also on the people, it is necessary to beat the people with all possible means — such are organic "respect and love." Do you feel, what is actually dictated by the notorious Western sanctions today?
Therefore, we will not be surprised that the words of Churchill in Fulton’s speech are: “I deeply admire and honor the glorious Russian people.”
But, as we understand, Churchill striking in front of the “glorious Russian people” is the most ordinary spell. By the way, and now neither Obama, nor Hollande, nor Grybauskaite either never said out loud that they hate Russians fiercely and in the sweetest dreams they see Russia’s disintegration into many specific principalities wholly dependent on the West principalities ... They just don’t like the strong will of our leaders , their constant joy about the interests of Russia. And nothing can be done about it.
But back to Churchill and his illustrious speech. What else did he tell 5 March 1946 of the year? Yes, just about the “iron curtain” and the “Soviet threat” to the democratic nations of the West.
“I do not believe that Russia wants war,” Churchill witnessed. “What she wants is the fruits of war and the unlimited expansion of her power and doctrine.” And further: “I have taken the conviction that they (Russians. - A.P.) do not honor anything as much as strength, and have no less respect for anything than for military weakness. For this reason, the old balance of power doctrine is now unfit. ”
And who is to blame for the fact that Europe has divided the "iron curtain"? Of course, the treacherous Russians: “From Stettin on the Baltic to Trieste on the Adriatic, the 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 people in their districts were within the limits of what I call the Soviet sphere, all of them in one form or another are subject not only to Soviet influence, but also to significant and ever-growing control of Moscow. Only Athens, with their undying glory, can freely determine their future elections with the participation of British, American and French observers. The Polish government, which is under Russian domination, is being encouraged to huge and unjust attacks on Germany, which leads to the mass expulsions of millions of Germans on a regrettable and unprecedented scale. The communist parties, which were very small in all these countries of Eastern Europe, have achieved exceptional strength, well in excess of their number, and are striving to establish totalitarian control everywhere. ”
The fact that the Anglo-Saxons, in alliance with the French, strive for no less complete control in their zone of occupation of Germany, as well as in other territories that they liberated from the Nazis and Italian fascists, or who they included in their sphere of influence, bashfully silently ...
“Only nations that speak English are full-fledged nations”
A special place in Sir Winston's speech is given (and it is clear why!) The position and role of the United States - the closest ally of the British Empire. Churchill is delighted that "the United States is at the pinnacle of world power." “This is a solemn moment for American democracy,” but also an extremely responsible position, the retired prime minister said. Oppose them, for his reasons, are two main enemies - "war and tyranny." Both, after the collapse of the Nazi regime and the Japanese empire, now emanate, the British peer believes, exclusively from the USSR and from the Russians from this country. This is the quintessence of Churchill's convictions, characterizing him as an ardent Russophobe and an outspoken supporter of racial theory. And it is not by chance that historical the former Prime Minister of Great Britain almost does not use the familiar names "Britain" and "Great Britain". But we will count the expressions "British Commonwealth and Empire" six times, "English-speaking peoples" - six times, "kindred" (nations) - eight times.
Of course, Mr. Churchill must pay tribute: in all his speech, written and read with the inherent talent of an inborn orator, he very cleverly uses memorable images and capacious expressions. It is noteworthy that such terms borrowed from the speeches of the preceding time, such as “iron curtain” and its “shadow falling on the continent”, “fifth column”, “police states”, “full obedience”, “unconditional extension of power” were previously used by politicians only in relation to the fascist regimes, first of all, Germany. Having aimed the edge of this accusatory language now against the USSR, Churchill has accumulated undoubtedly the negative emotions of American society, and after him - and the entire world community - on the new enemy - “Soviet expansionism”.
By the way, is this reception today by President Obama, coupled with politicians of different countries and stripes echoing him in relation to modern Russia and its leader?
Liberal politicians and literary writers who serve them, publicists, who today admire the fairness of their assessments, frankness and accusatory pathos of Churchill’s Fulton speech, for obvious reasons, are embarrassed to say that I.V. Stalin gave a worthy rebuke to Sir Winston. Soon after Fulton, he gave this assessment to the programmatic manifesto of a British politician: “It should be noted that Mr. Churchill and his friends are strikingly reminiscent of ... Hitler and his friends. Hitler began the cause of unleashing war by proclaiming racial theory, declaring that only people who speak German represent a full-fledged nation. Mr. Churchill begins a war with racial theory too, arguing that only English-speaking nations are full-fledged nations designed 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 dominate other nations. The English racial theory leads Mr. Churchill and his friends to the conclusion that the English-speaking nations, as the only full-fledged, should dominate the rest of the nations of the world. ”
It must be thought that after such an exposing response, the primish Englishman hated Stalin and all Russians even more.
Calling Russia "Asian despotism," Churchill prompted President US President Truman on a course to exacerbate relations with Moscow, which he took shortly after the war.
Truman himself, who saw the Anglo-Saxons "leaders of the world", became famous for the doctrine of his own authorship, justifying the expansionism of the United States literally in all parts of the world. (This experience of unlimited expansion embracing practically the entire globe was repeated by almost all American presidents, not excluding the elder and younger Bush and, of course, Obama).
Churchill passed away on January 24 of the year 1965, basking again in the rays of glory. Capricious, fate gave him the opportunity to once more sit in the chair of the British prime minister (in 1951 – 1954); and he still managed to get the Order of the Garter, the Nobel Prize in Literature, and a bunch of stars, medals, honorary titles and various awards ... He died, I think, not particularly worried about the work of his life: russophobia raised to the rank of state policy was not she was dying with him, and even the impracticable plan of Operation Unthinkable (which we described in the “Century” earlier), quickly gave its poisonous shoots (although the roots of this venture were hidden in our archive up to our time) ...
Of the decrepit British hands, the banner of hatred of Russian and Soviet citizens, the all-embracing confrontation with the USSR (and now, as we see, with democratic Russia) was picked up by the omnipresent Yankees.
"Russians are coming"?
Already at the end of 1945, a super-secret plan of nuclear war against the USSR under the eloquent name "Totality" was developed at the headquarters of the supreme Soviet Order of Victory General and future US President Dwight Eisenhower on the orders of Truman. It was as simple as a cowboy’s nature: dropping 20 – 30 atomic bombs (the tragic experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at Eisenhower’s headquarters was studied and adopted) at 20 cities of the Soviet Union, including Moscow, Leningrad, Baku, Grozny, Kazan.
Then the American "peacemakers" gave birth to the Chartiotir plan - to drop atomic bombs 133 (their arsenal was built up at a frantic pace in the USA) already on 70 cities, and eight bombs on Moscow, seven on Leningrad.
As is clear from the declassified documents of the FBI, Churchill, in turn, also offered the United States to launch a nuclear attack on the USSR, but only in the 1947 year. Then he appealed to Republican Senator Stiles Bridges with a request to convince US President Harry Truman to launch a nuclear strike on the Kremlin. Churchill, according to modern “independent” authors, considered a “warning” strike the only way to “influence” Stalin and achieve that the USSR would no longer pose a threat to the West ... Why did Truman not listen to his teacher and spiritual mentor this time (at least in terms of the “God's chosen people” of the Anglo-Saxon race and the “leading role” of the USA in the world), we will say further, and now a little more about the plans for a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union that were born in the Pentagon.
19 December 1949 of the United States Committee of Chiefs approved the plan “Dropshot” (“Dropshot”) - officially to counter the alleged Soviet invasion of the USSR into Western Europe, the Middle East and Japan. The plan involved dropping 300 atomic warheads of kilotons and 50 thousands of tons of conventional bombs on 200 Soviet cities, of which 100 nuclear bombs - on Moscow, 25 - on Leningrad, 22 - on Sverdlovsk, 10 - on Kiev, 8 - on Dnepropetrovsk, 5 - to Lviv, etc. For the economical use of available funds, the plan provided for the development of ballistic missiles. In addition to nuclear weapons At the first stage, it was intended to use 250 thousand tons of conventional bombs, and 6 total of million tons of ordinary bombs. The Americans estimated that as a result of massive atomic and conventional bombardment, about 60 million people in the USSR would die, and more than that, taking into account further hostilities, more than 100 million Soviet people would die.
Actually, the Dropshot plan didn’t bring anything new, only the geography of the planned monstrous bombings is becoming more extensive, the number of dropped nuclear warheads is calculated not by the dozens but by the hundreds, and besides the atomic weapons, it was supposed to use the power of the ordinary trotyl.
In the end, in 50-70-s, with the development of rocket weapons and the insane increase of nuclear missile power, they come to the idea of arranging a sort of total apocalypse on one-sixth of Earth, as a result of which there should not be any intelligent life here at all.
What, from time to time, cooled the heated heads of overseas hawks? I would not like to repeat common truths, but I will have to: cooled the defensive might of the Soviet Union.
It was her ever-increasing potential that served as that cold shower that, spilling in intelligence reports and reports of her own American analysts, brought some comfort to the heated minds of Pentagon and then NATO strategists.
So, in 1948, the Padron command and staff game was played out in the Pentagon, during which a plan for a nuclear attack on the USSR called Halfmun was tested. The Soviet Union did not yet have its own atomic bomb (it was not even tested), and the conclusions of the Pentagonists turned out to be disappointing: even if bombarded with fifty nuclear bombs, the Soviet Union would survive and triumph in ground operations. It was believed, and not without reason, by the Americans, in response to the nuclear bombardment, that our country would launch large-scale operations with powerful ground forces and would occupy all of Western Europe (with the exception of England) during 7-10 days. Soviet soldiers will wash their boots in the waters of the English Channel ... Presumably, it was sometimes seen by Pentagonists in bad dreams.
And how can you not remember the post-war American Minister of Defense J. Forrestal, who, as you know, jumped out of his office window with a heart-rending cry: “Russians are coming!”
Texan Cowboy Doctrine
To understand how Churchill’s Fulton speech about the unconditional and absolute domination in the world of the Anglo-Saxon race transformed into concrete American politics, we must recall some points related to the evolution of the US foreign policy doctrine. The fact is that Mr. Truman gave birth to himself and began to implement his own doctrine, which replaced the doctrine of Monroe, the US president from 1817 to 1825.
The Monroe Doctrine, as is well known, proclaimed isolationism as the main feature of the foreign policy of the young North American state. This was dictated by the desire to make it clear to England that it is unacceptable to interfere in the internal affairs of the newly formed states, that is, of course, above all, of the North American United States themselves.
At the time of Truman (and even earlier), the Monroe concept already in no way responded to the ambitions of Washington. The United States as a result of the Second World War turned into an economic, political and military superpower, the absolute leader of the capitalist world. Therefore, the essence of Truman's concept is to interfere in the internal affairs of any states with the aim of “countering the communist threat”, since the allegedly US interests suffer from the fall of the “democratic” (and it doesn't matter if it turns out to be the most authoritarian). . Armed with this “valuable” observation, the White House, from the first post-war years, actively began to promote its interests in South America, Africa and Europe.
Of course, Truman’s policy in the style of a Texas cowboy was not liked by everyone, especially those who had experienced in their own skin what the notorious American democracy carries with it. For many countries, whose power elites were tempted by the promises of resourceful Yankees, in fact turned into raw materials appendages of Washington, and their resources were shamelessly plundered by American monopolies, which, of course, did not cause the local population sympathy for the United States.
The policies of President Harry Truman - the faithful student of Sir Winston Churchill - were characterized by simply stunning duplicity and lack of principle (which you cannot do for the triumph of democracy!). For example, in June 1941 of the year, on the third day after the fascist attack of the fascist Germany on the USSR, the New York Times published an article by Truman, which contained such a passage: “If we see that Germany is winning the war, we should help Russia if Russia wins, we should help Germany, and let them kill each other as much as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler in the winners under any circumstances. ”
American politicians who did not share the frantic anti-Sovietism and Truman’s Russophobia did not stay long at their posts.
The same applies to the unconditional following in line with the "general line" of the president. So, when the US Treasury Secretary allowed himself to disagree with the President on the most trivial matter, after three days he was dismissed.
Let us also recall that the anti-communist hysteria in America under Truman reached its full apogee. It was during his time that the McCarthy movement began (by the name of Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy), accompanied by large-scale political repression against all dissidents. Sharing McCarthy’s views (though not really advertising them), Truman issued Decree No. 9835. This legal act is noteworthy in that it automatically forbade the admission to work in state bodies of "unreliable" elements, which meant primarily people who are left-wing or simply express any sympathy for the "Soviets."
And the notorious Commission to investigate anti-American activities covered almost all areas of US life. Not limited to government officials alone, the inquisitors from this Commission actually carried out extrajudicial investigations into many cultural and art workers.
Senator McCarthy himself, without any doubt, once publicly declared: “I have a list of 205 State Department employees who turned out to be either members of the membership card or who are certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who, in spite of everything, still help shape our foreign policy. Needless to say, that soon the list was supplemented with the names of another three thousand American officials, whose only fault was that they "sympathize with communism and the USSR." And almost all the defendants of this list were dismissed from work with the "wolf ticket."
Anti-communist hysteria led to the fact that, following the example of the Nazis in the United States, after checking the book collections of public libraries, about 30 thousand titles of books of “pro-communist orientation” were seized.
And it is not by chance that many writers, primarily of a humanistic nature, both European and American, got into this list of forbidden literature.
But the “great inquisitor” McCarthy didn’t stop there. He published in the press his report on the communist "filtration" on radio and television, which was, characteristically, named by him the "Red Channels". The report called 151 the name of artists who were demanded to leave work in the media, admitting to "pro-communist" activities.
Thus, everyone who dared to publicly express sympathy for the Soviet and Russian people, was subjected to the most severe obstruction and was thrown to the side of life without regret.
Summing up all the above, I would like to advise Russian liberals and their voices, today singing hosannas to Washington, London, Paris, etc. for anti-Russian sanctions and a “principled” course in matters of the Crimea and Donbass, to be more balanced in their assessments. And may they acquaint the Russians with the unfavorable facts from the political life of the Americans and the British, in what Winston Churchill's Fulton speech actually was, which served as a signal for the exacerbation of relations between the West and Soviet Russia. And what crazy expenditures on armaments, what fiendish scams to overthrow undesirable regimes have resulted in all this policy of “good intentions”, which, as we know, lead only to hell, and nowhere else. After all, as we see, in the USA of the post-war time, which Churchill issued as a model for the whole world, that was all. And repression against dissidents. And the theory of Anglo-Saxon racial superiority. Insane plans of a nuclear attack on the USSR threatening with a universal catastrophe. Burning hatred for those who dared to stand in the way of the "rink of democracy".
And here we can’t get away from the question: is this story repeating itself today in the USA and in the whole “free” world, only at a new round?
And returning to the topic of the Iron Curtain, it is easy to conclude by whose fault he sank, who made it so that almost immediately after the end of World War II, humanity was again plunged into a confrontation called the Cold War. Historical parallels with our time are obvious.