Already during the Second World War, and especially after its completion, there were many official statements by American political and military leaders that the United States had made a strategic mistake in associating itself with the USSR by an alliance of the anti-Hitler coalition. Republican leader R. Taft, known in the past, wrote in his book Foreign Policy for Americans that he warned our country on the third day of the German attack: “A Communist victory in a war will be much more dangerous for the United States from an ideological point of view than a fascist victory ".
The consequence of this kind of thinking was the “cold war”, which, as all sober-minded people know, except for some democratic historians and teachers of prestigious universities, was unleashed by the United States. Actually, the “cold war” in many statements was associated with the victory over fascism. So, in 1952, McCarthy said that we can safely say that the next, third, world war began with the victory of the Soviet troops at Stalingrad. As we see, the “cold war” began its life at the very moment when the fascist received such a blow, after which the victory of our country over Germany became obvious.
Arguments about the "unnaturalness" of the Soviet-American alliance in the war against fascism found in the political science of the West the widest circulation. They had a clear goal. It was necessary to prepare the Americans and their allies for a possible new war, now against a recent ally - the USSR. Speaking of 5 in March 1946, in Fulton, Churchill, sputtering out saliva, appealed to the Americans, stating that the United States is now at the very top of world power, therefore, residents of the United States should not only enjoy the benefits, but also fear lose positions achieved. Therefore, Churchill called on America not to behave in such a way “so that events would develop by gravity.”
Britain, meanwhile, was holding more than 70000 unformed German forces in its German occupation zone, hoping for an "opportunity". William Churchill's speech was expressed by the official foreign policy of the United States, which had already become by that time. According to the testimony of W. Taubman, G. Truman, at the end of April 1945, had a conversation with V.M. Molotov in a clearly defiant manner, demonstrating a “new American approach” that changed the course stories. However, at that point in time, according to Taubman, the US president still lacked confidence. She came with the atomic gain weapons and resulted in the “Truman Doctrine”, which can be considered the first political directive formally marking the beginning of the Cold War.
At the beginning of March, 1947, at the passing joint session of the Congress, G. Truman, justifying the claims of the United States to world domination, stated that “free nations” expect their country to protect “their freedoms”, called for “decisiveness” in the “leading role” .
K. London, in his book How Foreign Policy Is Done, pointed out that the United States can and must use nuclear war as a means of national policy until the Soviet Union created an atomic bomb, he demanded to spin the flywheel of the cold war to prepare Americans for war "hot".
In the “American people and foreign policy,” published by G. Almond in large circulation, the author called for the authorities to stop fearing the consequences of the war, but, on the contrary, to start it as soon as possible in the name of protecting “democratic values”. Let mankind "not reward with love or respect for such a policy ... - says Almond, - but the American people will surely approve of it and the preventive war against Soviet Russia."
Many American politicians have seen the task of the United States in creating the largest possible number of strategic points around the world and preparing the troops to hold these territories. They planned to use Germany as a so-called springboard for further movement to the Balkans and Ukraine. All these statements become doubly remarkable if we recall that they were formulated against the background of the active development of real plans for atomic aggression on the USSR.
In the fall of 1945, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CSTS) approved the “Basics of the formulation of American military policy” (1496 / 2) and the “Strategic concept and plan for the use of the US military” (1518). The 1496 / 2 Directive provided for the possibility of preemptive attacks. It noted that the US command could not afford any false ideas about the impossibility of their own aggressive actions, if the first blow could be dealt to the United States. In such circumstances, the US government is obliged to take the appropriate political decision in the shortest possible time, and the military at this time will have to carry out the necessary preparations for delivering a forward first strike. Those. it was proposed to transfer everything to the dependence on the degree of paranoia of the US political leadership.
In early October 1945, the OKNS demanded to accelerate nuclear research and the manufacture of atomic bombs, and the secret development of November 31, 1945 already indicated the targets for atomic bombings: Moscow, Leningrad, Gorky, Kuibyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Baku, Tashkent, Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Perm, Tbilisi, Novokuznetsk, Grozny, Irkutsk, Yaroslavl. By the fall of 1947, one hundred Soviet city centers were already serving as targets for the atomic strike. The following year, the first strategic operational plan was prepared. aviation, who stated that the main feature of nuclear weapons is the ability to successfully and highly efficiently destroy mass crowds, and this feature should be used. In those years, the Americans developed both general and specific plans for nuclear bombing and military operations, which received the names "Broiler", "Frolik", "Harrow" and others.
The Strategic Planning Directives (01.05.1947) OKNSH document stated that if the necessary military bases and communications were established, the United States could shortly after the outbreak of hostilities carry out offensive, strategic, air operations, attacking Soviet cities and strategically important industrial centers. The need was emphasized for the separation of ground forces, the Air Force and the Navy to ensure the capture of important areas in order to ensure the effectiveness of strategic bombardments, and then to launch a large ground attack. Pacifism and peacefulness here does not smell, as well as doubts about the need to trample our land with the American army boot.
The enterprises of our oil industry were planned to be subjected to “effective bombardment” from American Mediterranean bases, as well as airfields located in the Cairo-Suez region. The “Directives” indicated that areas around the Soviet capital, the bombing of which, in the opinion of American generals, “would have the maximum moral effect”, were located within the range of B-29 heavy bombers deployed in England or in Egypt. Vital centers for the USSR in the Urals and Kuzbass could be reached from air bases in India. Therefore, it was stated in the "Directive" that in order to achieve the greatest effectiveness of strategic air war, it is necessary to create bases in the countries of the Middle East, the British Isles, and also in India.
Full control over the Soviet Union was planned to be ensured by occupying a limited territory, while it was noted that, in view of the considerable size and number of Soviet people who had to be kept under control, it was necessary to have rather large armed forces of allied satellites.
And in 1946, Assistant to the President C. Clifford prepared the report “American policy towards the Soviet Union”, where the course for war was substantiated. Clifford pointed out that the vulnerability of the USSR is extremely low due to the huge area of Soviet territory, which contains the main defense and industrial enterprises, as well as mineral deposits. However, Soviet Russia can be harmed using nuclear weapons, biological warfare, and air raids. Therefore, the United States should prepare for an atomic and biological war and maintain its armed forces at the level required to effectively curb the USSR. Like this. No more, no less: atomic bombing and infection of the population with the most terrible diseases. This is the true face of the United States, to which, starting from the eighties, in our media and from the stands, we began to pull on sheep's clothing.
During this period, a special structure was formed to coordinate the preparation and direct conduct of the war against the USSR. At the end of 1947, the Ministry of Defense was created, and Forrestal, known for his ultra-right views, became the leader. In addition, the National Security Council (SNB) was established, which was directly presided over by the President. The council coordinated American military efforts and developed a military strategy, which then took the form of OKNSH plans.
The most representative documents of that time were the SNB-7, 20 / 1, 20 / 2, 58 directives. What did the US plans have to happen with the USSR? On this account, the memorandum SNB-20 / 1 to the limit of frank. It pointed out that among the Russian émigrés there is a sufficient number of “interesting and strong groups”, and any of these would be preferable for the United States to the Soviet government to manage Russia. It was further stated that in every part of the occupied territory, the Americans and their allies would have to deal with party workers. In addition, the Communist Party is likely to move to an illegal situation, as it was in the last war in the territories occupied by the Germans, and will organize "guerrilla gangs and rebel groups." To combat them, the US military planned to use "non-communist (whatever kind of) Russian bodies" (read policemen) who need to transfer the required weapons, provide them with military support and allow them to deal with the Communists and other patriots in accordance with "traditional in the way of the Russian civil war ”(probably, here the Americans meant cruelty and frank sadism of the Kolchak units).
After the organization of the North Atlantic bloc in 1949, the further development and equipment of the armed forces of the main capitalist countries took place not only within the national framework, but also within the framework of the blocs.
Even a special theory was born - the theory of "interdependence", the essence of which boiled down to the fact that the United States focuses on atomic weapons and means of delivering them to the target (strategic, tactical and aircraft carrier aircraft, missiles for various purposes, as well as other new military equipment). The rest of the blocs were supposed to develop mainly ground forces. So, if in the United States the number of ground forces did not exceed an average of 37-40% of the total strength of the armed forces, then in France, Italy, West Germany and Turkey, the ground forces accounted for 75 to 85% of the total strength of the armed forces. This is who was assigned the role of cannon fodder, throwing itself under the tracks of the remaining after the atomic strikes of the Soviet tank armada, and who would have to crawl through the zones of radioactive contamination.
Despite the fact that in the leading capitalist countries, after the end of World War II, a process of gradual demobilization took place, none of them actually intended to demobilize their armed forces and bring their numbers to the pre-war level. On the contrary, after 1948, until the early 1950s, the size of the armed forces (SC) began to grow steadily. Even more clearly evidence of this is the budget allocations for military needs.
The United States of America, Great Britain and France possessed an unprecedented number of armed forces for peacetime. This was motivated, in particular, by the fact that a sudden strike with nuclear weapons on the most important economic and political centers of the state could thwart the mobilization deployment at the very beginning of the war, and supposedly therefore the armed forces required for conducting combat operations at the beginning of the war should be fully mobilized and prepared as early as the peace period. In fact, it was a matter of striving to maintain in peacetime armed forces capable of attacking the USSR at any time.
We should not forget that the United States, as well as Britain and France immediately after the end of the war, began to consistently implement measures aimed at preserving the cadres of the former armed forces of Hitler's Germany, reviving German militarism and creating a massive revanchist army. German militarism from that time began to be regarded as the main accomplice in the implementation of plans for war.
Initial activities included:
- the creation of a special organizational center of the former generals and officers of the Hitlerite general staff, led by generals Halder and Guderian, who had the sign "Committee for the Study of the History of War", there also entered Heusinger and Speidel (in fact, they were not engaged in writing materials, but collecting and the study of data on the scattered personnel of the fascist German army and the development of plans for its restoration);
- encouraging the activities of all sorts of military and paramilitary alliances, fraternities, associations, including officers, generals, and soldiers (it was assumed that these organizations would become the core of the subsequent military formations);
- organizations of the so-called "labor formations", created on a military model and headed by a mixed US-German command;
- the creation of an extensive police service.
After the formation of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949, the revival of German militarism was put on a state basis. In May, 1955, almost on the tenth anniversary of the Victory, the Federal Republic of Germany was officially admitted to NATO. Since that time, the revival of its armed forces began to be conducted at an accelerated pace. In accordance with the Paris Agreements of West Germany, at the first stage, the formation of a cadre army of 500 thousand men was allowed, followed by its use as a basis for broad mobilization deployment.
In the USA and the UK, starting around 1954, the year after year there was a slight decrease in the total number of aircraft. In the USA, for example, in 1958, compared with 1954, this reduction was almost 800 thousand people, or 21%., And in the UK - 300 thousand, or 24,5%. At the same time, in the United States and in Great Britain, mainly ground forces decreased, while in the ground forces, mainly serving and auxiliary units. Despite the reduction, the firepower of the armed forces not only did not decrease, but increased significantly due to the introduction of nuclear weapons and their carriers.
Since the future war was viewed as a nuclear war, the main attention was paid to the type of armed forces that possessed the main carriers of nuclear weapons and could use them most effectively in the interests of successful warfare against our country and other socialist countries. According to US military leaders, the Air Force was the decisive tool at the time, as well as guided missiles of various radii of action. However, priority remained with strategic aviation, which was considered the dominant type of aircraft and the main deterrent. All this is reflected in the so-called “new course” of the American strategy, the development of which began in 1953, after the choice of Eisenhower. A three-year plan for the construction of the armed forces was drawn up for the period from July 1954 to July 1957. It provided for a significant increase in air power. Budget allocations vividly reflected this line. If in the 1950 / 51 of the fiscal year 24,4% of the military budget was spent on the Air Force, in the 1953 / 54-m already 32,3%.
1955 to 1959 funds were distributed as follows: about 46% - to the air force, about 28%. - Navy and marines and approximately 23%. - land forces. As for the most important part of the allocations intended for the purchase of new weapons, the Air Force for this period systematically received approximately 60% of disbursed funds, naval forces - of the order of 30% and the army - about 10%. In the official instruction of the Air Force, which was widely distributed among the personnel of the American armed forces, the role of the Air Force was defined as follows: “The air force is the main fighting means ensuring the seizure of initiative and obtaining decisive results in all forms of international relations, including complete peace, cold war, war of limited scope and total war. ”
The American plans to unleash an atomic war against our country were “embarrassed” by a TASS report from 25 of September 1949 about the testing of a Soviet atomic device. The most devastating blow to these plans was delivered in the second half of 1957, by the successful testing of an intercontinental ballistic missile in the USSR. These scientific achievements of the USSR, which were a surprise to American strategists, overthrew all calculations for unpunished aggression.
In the American strategy, the main stake was made on delivering a sudden strike by strategic aviation, which was based on the US's presumed advantage over our country in atomic weapons, the means of delivering it to the target and its geographic location. With the advent of such weapons, the USSR was temporarily postponed a preemptive strike on them due to fear of retribution and, in general, uncertainty about the outcome of the war. However, this did not at all mean that the thought was left about achieving world domination through the nuclear destruction of the USSR. In the middle of August, the 1950 of the year was determined by the school as the main task “the destruction of facilities that provide the Soviet Union with the opportunity to use nuclear bombs. In second place was the task of slowing the onset of the Soviet Army, the third bombing of enterprises producing liquid fuel, conventional and nuclear power plants. These three categories were given the code names Bravo, Romeo and Delta.
A comparison of the texts of the official documents of the first post-war decade with all subsequent statements, up to the present day, illustrates the sequence of the course on doing business with our country from a position of strength. Presidents, parties in power, ministers were replaced, but directives remained the same.
Maybe the Soviet Union gave any reason for such a hostile, aggressive policy? No, did not give. At that time (after the defeat of Germany and Japan), the Armed Forces of the USSR were transferred to a peaceful situation, their numbers were sharply reduced. 23 June 1945, the twelfth session of the USSR Supreme Soviet of the first convocation adopted the Law on the Demobilization of Older Personnel. Workers and collective farmers, engineers, doctors, teachers and other specialists returned to the national economy to peace work. It was necessary to raise the country, revive the land, rebuild cities and factories, revive production, re-establish life. Yesterday's warriors, trashed with weapons in the hands of the fascists, without pauses, without respite were involved in difficult, constructive work.
Against the background of the warlike directives and plans of the leaders of the United States of America to start the next world war, plans for the destruction of the USSR, the documents on combat training, for example, the group of Soviet occupying forces in Germany (GSOVG) in 1946-1948, are completely different. which can be found on the Internet.
Order of the Chief of the GSSOV No. 015 from 19 in January 1946 of the Marshal of the Soviet Union G. K. Zhukov on the training of senior commanders and staffs (groups, armies, corps), command plan for 1948 per year, and the operational plan of the Group from 5 in November 1946 The tasks assigned to associations, formations and units are of a purely defensive nature. The order of the commander-in-chief requires that the combat training of the troops be carried out taking into account the experience of the past war, and that defensive and retreat operations and battles are primarily studied, the main emphasis was placed on the military exercises of formations and units of various military branches, with working out the issues of interaction and control in general combat The troops are guided by the study of each type of operation and combat in difficult conditions, while they must learn to act skillfully in breaking through and covering the flanks of our defense with the enemy, and to fight in the environment in the conditions of defense and withdrawal.
The planned front-line and army headquarters military games, command-field field trips, scientific conferences, special exercises, corps command-field field trips are primarily aimed at studying defense issues and are defensive in nature. Commander training in the GDWG was subordinated to the same goals. Commander training is an integral part of operational and combat training. It consists of operational-tactical military-technical, special, fire, reconnaissance, physical and methodical training. Most of the time is devoted to operational-tactical and special training. The absolute majority of classes were devoted to defensive actions.
Our country, unlike the post-war United States, did not have invasive targets, did not think about aggression, did not hold a stone in the bosom and built combat training and study based on the principles of the defensive doctrine.
Yakovlev A. From Truman to Reagan: the doctrines and realities of the nuclear age. M .: Young Guard. 1984. C.3-32.
Orlov A. The Secret Battle of the Superpowers. M .: Veche, 2000. C. 24-67.
Omelichev A. From the standpoint of force and threats // VISH. 1988. No.9. C.14-28.
Yemelyanov Yu. Thus began the cold war // Centenary. 14 March 2016.
Yakovlev N. The CIA against the USSR. M .: True, 1983. C. 18-34.