70 years ago, March 5, 1946, Winston Churchill gave his famous speech in Fulton. Ronald Reagan said that from the Fulton speech not only the modern West was born, but also peace on the planet. But it seems he was going too far.
As you know, it was during this speech that Churchill first used the expression “iron curtain”. According to him, this curtain "was drawn from Stettin on the Baltic to Trieste on the Adriatic, across the entire continent." The British ex-prime minister accused the Kremlin of the fact that beyond this line “all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe... in one form or another are objects not only of Soviet influence, but also of very high, and in some cases growing control from Moscow."
The only instrument, according to Churchill, capable of providing “resistance to tyranny” is the “fraternal association of English-speaking peoples.”
However, one of the regular experts of the Free Press - Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor, Faculty of World Politics, Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov Alexey Fenenko,- believes that the foundations of the Cold War were laid long before Fulton, and the real Cold War began 10 years later.
In my opinion, in our country the importance of the Fulton speech is incredibly exaggerated,” says Alexey Fenenko. - This attitude arose back in 1946, after March 14 in the newspaper “Pravda” Joseph Stalin gave an answer to Churchill (Stalin put Churchill on a par with Hitler, and stated that in his speech he called on the West for war with the USSR, and also accused it of racism - “SP”).
You have to understand: Churchill was a retired prime minister by that time. He was neither a British official nor an official. And he made his speech not in Great Britain - not on the territory of his own country. In other words, one former politician visited another country, where he made a corresponding speech - that’s all.
But the fact that Stalin - the leader of the Soviet Union, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars and General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks - officially responded to this speech immediately raised its status.
“SP”: - Can we say that it was Churchill’s speech that marked the transition point between partnership during the war and the Cold War?
In my opinion - no. But before we talk about the real transition to the Cold War, I note that the term itself was coined by an American observer Walter Lippman- Churchill had no merit in this. And that the prerequisites for the transition to the Cold War matured throughout the Second World War.
Let me remind you that the partnership between the USSR and its allies was far from being as cloudless as it is usually portrayed in our country.
Even when the Germans stood near Kiev and Smolensk, and the battle for Moscow was ahead, - August 14, 1941, - Churchill and the US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt meet on the island of Newfoundland and adopt the Atlantic Charter. In it, they formulate the so-called values of the post-war world order, including non-recognition of territorial changes made through force, punishment (that is, forced disarmament) of aggressors, the spread of liberal democratic values and ensuring free access to energy.
That is, the leaders of the USA and Great Britain already in the summer of 1941 were so confident in their final victory over the Axis powers (Berlin-Rome-Tokyo) that even then, without the participation of the Soviet Union, they began to form a favorable image of the post-war world for themselves. Nobody invited the USSR to discuss the Atlantic Charter.
The Soviet Union said then that it supported the Atlantic Charter, but that was the end of it. And in the first year of the war, Moscow’s relations with its allies were very tense.
Let me remind you that neither the United States nor Great Britain recognized our territorial acquisitions of 1939-1940: the Baltic states, Western Ukraine, Western Belarus, Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, plus the annexation of part of the territories following the Winter War with Finland. In fact, from a diplomatic point of view, the entire first year of the war was spent getting the Allies to recognize us at the borders of June 21, 1941.
The results of these negotiations varied. There was, for example, a visit to Moscow on December 15-22, 1941 by the British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden- and it turned out to be scandalous. Stalin then posed a point-blank question to Eden: would Great Britain recognize the territorial acquisitions of the Soviet Union in 1939-1940? Eden said that he must request His Majesty's Government. Then Stalin clearly asked: is the provision of the Atlantic Charter directed against the Soviet Union? Let me remind you that one of the clauses of the Charter was the non-recognition of territorial changes made through force. This point could be interpreted, among other things, as directed against the USSR.
Eden left, but the conflict received an international resonance. The recording of the negotiations ended up in Germany. Goebbels spoke live and sarcastically said that the “Grand Alliance” was a concept that existed from July to December 1941, and that after Eden’s visit it became history.
In other words, the Germans then believed that this was a real split in the anti-Hitler coalition.
Roosevelt's mediation saved the situation. The American president first insisted on signing the United Nations declaration, and then said: let's not interpret the provisions of the Atlantic Charter literally. And when in June 1942 the People's Commissar, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR Vyacheslav Molotov visited Washington, Roosevelt proposed to him the concept of “three policemen”: so that in the post-war world the leading role would be played by three powers - the Soviet Union, the USA and Great Britain.
It was then that we were first told that the Soviet Union would also become one of the leaders of the post-war world order - only in the summer of 1942.
A little earlier, on May 26, 1942, a Soviet-British alliance treaty was signed, and under its terms, Great Britain recognized the USSR within the borders of June 21, 1941. But the United States never recognized us within these borders. Until the end of the Cold War, the United States put an asterisk in any international document and wrote that the United States did not recognize the Baltic republics as part of the Soviet Union.
That's how specific we were as allies during the war!
“SP”: - When did our relations with our allies begin to openly deteriorate?
Since the spring of 1945. We are now talking about the meeting on the Elbe as a joyful and beautiful event. In fact, already at the end of 1944, both Washington and London were worried about the upcoming meeting with the Soviet army: whether it would be peaceful, or whether it would happen in a different format.
The key moment was the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944. Let me remind you that the German Army Group B under the command of Field Marshal B. Model went on the offensive, broke through the Allied front and moved forward 100 kilometers. To assess the degree of shock to the Allies, let me remind you that in November 1944, a special commission was created in the United States to assess the effectiveness of strategic bombing of Germany - it was believed that it was already completely over, and the time had come to assess the effectiveness of strategic air strikes. Now the Allies asked Stalin to speed up the offensive on the Eastern Front, which ultimately resulted in the Vistula-Oder operation. In those days, the Allies really felt the power of the Wehrmacht. And at the same time - the power of the army that crushed the Wehrmacht. And just as the USSR “tried on itself” the strategic bombing of the allies, so the allies “tried on themselves” what awaited their troops in Europe in the event of a conflict with the USSR. That is why, I think, the Yalta Conference was held on the delimitation of spheres of influence in Europe - because of the expected meeting of the Red Army with the armies of the Western allies.
Yalta conference. British Prime Minister W. Churchill, US President F.D. Roosevelt and Marshal of the Soviet Union J.V. Stalin before the start of one of the meetings. Standing: British Foreign Minister A. Eden, US Secretary of State E. Stettinius and People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR V. M. Molotov (Photo: TASS) Let me remind you of an interesting fact: there were two German capitulations. We celebrate on May 9 the surrender signed by Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel in Potsdam on the night of May 8–9, 1945. But this was the second capitulation. The first was signed by the Allies with Germany on the night of May 6-7, 1945 in Reims. She was endorsed by Major General from the USSR Ivan Susloparov provided that its text is preliminary. The capitulation was re-signed at the insistence of the USSR. After this story, the Soviet leadership, not without reason, feared that the United States and Great Britain had their own plans for Germany.
Now look from this angle at the contacts of the Allies with the German command in the spring of 1945 - we all know one of the episodes from the film “Seventeen Moments of Spring” - an episode with Operation Sunrise (Crossword), which was based on historical facts.
SP: - Were there economic reasons for the conflict between the USSR and its allies?
In the summer of 1944, the famous Bretton Woods agreements on two world reserve currencies - the dollar and the pound sterling - were signed. In addition, agreements were signed on the creation of two international financial institutions - the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The Soviet Union signed the Bretton Woods agreements, but set two conditions for ratification: to recognize the ruble as the world reserve currency, and to expand the number of votes of the Soviet Union in the IMF.
Roosevelt then put the resolution "I agree", but after his death on April 12, 1945, and the President came to power Harry Truman, the situation has changed dramatically. Truman refused the USSR's demands, and then the Union did not ratify the Bretton Woods agreements.
This means that already from mid-1945, the economic division of the post-war world was becoming a reality. It became clear that there would not be a single economic system of the world, as planned in 1943-44.
SP: - Since when did aggravation become inevitable?
I think by the beginning of 1946. The Allies were very concerned about three countries: Iran, Greece and Türkiye. Let me remind you that Soviet and British troops were in Iran since 1941; by the end of the war, the British were withdrawn, but the Soviets remained, and did not allow the Iranian government to suppress the uprising in Iranian Azerbaijan. In Iran, they feared that Stalin was preparing to annex Iranian Azerbaijan to the USSR. By the way, Churchill’s speech in Fulton was, first of all, an insult to the Iranian crisis: the British believed that the Soviet Union had outplayed them.
The second problem was Turkey, since the Soviet Union denounced the Soviet-Turkish Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation of 1925, as it believed that Turkey was led by the President İsmet İnönü took too pro-German position. Therefore, on August 7, 1946, the USSR issued a note to Turkey on the straits, in which it demanded a partial revision of the regime of the 1936 Montreux Convention.
The Soviet Union proposed the following: firstly, to create a naval base on the Bosphorus, and secondly, to ensure that the USSR, together with Turkey, decided on the right to admit military ships of third countries to the Black Sea (and not Turkey alone, as envisaged convention). The fact is that in 1936, Turkey was headed by a friend friendly to us Mustafa Kemal, and we agreed with the convention, but now the situation has changed. Our note to the allies was frankly frightening.
Finally, Greece. In 1944, Stalin agreed with Churchill that Greece would move into the sphere of influence of Great Britain, Romania and Bulgaria into the sphere of influence of the USSR. Yugoslavia remains neutral. The fact that a civil war between communists and monarchists began in Greece made the situation in the country extremely uncertain, and the West believed that Stalin had violated the Yalta agreements.
As a result, the actions of the USSR around Iran, Greece and Turkey were regarded by the West as an attempt to go beyond the scope of the Yalta Agreement. So by the beginning of 1946 it became clear that conflict between the allies was inevitable.
And here, for the beginning of the Cold War, it was not Churchill’s Fulton speech that was much more important, but the long telegram of George Kennan, the US Charge d'Affaires in the Soviet Union. On February 22, 1946, he sent a dispatch to Washington about the origins of the policy of the Soviet Union, and in it he proclaimed the famous concept of containing communism in those territorial spheres of influence that were acquired during the Yalta Conference. It was Kennan who advised providing economic assistance to Western Europe on American terms, and providing security guarantees to the allies from the United States. In other words, this long telegram outlined the entire logic of subsequent US actions.
As you can see, Churchill's speech didn't change much here.
“SP”: - What conclusions should be drawn from this today?
We often confuse two things when talking about the beginning of the Cold War: a general cooling with bloc confrontation. If we talk about the bloc confrontation as a cold war between the communist and Western camps, it began ten years later - in 1955-56. Then, due to the admission of Germany to NATO, the Soviet Union denounced all agreements on the anti-Hitler coalition.
This means that rhetoric is rhetoric, but until 1955, we formally remained allies with the United States and Great Britain. We considered only the admission of the German army - which consisted of the former Nazi Wehrmacht and the SS - into NATO as a pretext for a sharp break in relations, and for the creation of our own Warsaw Pact Organization (WTO). Political facts played a big role here: non-recognition of the GDR by the FRG, non-recognition of the borders along the Oder-Neisse by the FRG. The USSR considered this a refusal by the Allies to take a common line towards Germany, determined at the Potsdam Conference in 1945. It was then that the final split occurred, and two opposing blocs were formed - NATO and the Warsaw Department.
Potsdam Conference, 1945 (Photo: TASS)
And finally, let's not forget that in Stalin's times it was believed that there were three superpowers - including Great Britain. And sometimes France was also considered the fourth superpower, and under Stalin, it was not France that was written in books, but the French Empire, implying that France had huge colonial possessions.
It was only in 1956, after the Suez Crisis, that the Soviet Union and the United States jointly reduced Britain and France to the level of minor powers. It turns out that the Cold War was a Cold War, but until the mid-1950s, the Americans and I cooperated very well in defeating the British and French empires. It was only in 1956 that we and the United States found ourselves in a situation of bloc confrontation, when there was no “lining” between us in the form of other states. This order is precisely the current world order.
In fact, we still continue to live according to the rules established by the victorious powers in 1945. We still have the same UN Security Council - five victorious powers that rule simultaneously, on behalf of the results of World War II, and have veto rights that distinguish them from other states. Plus, it was these five members of the UN Security Council that secured their status as legal nuclear powers. And the economic system of the world, with all its modifications, is currently regulated by the Bretton Woods agreements.
There were two modifications of the world order: the first was 1956, the second was the collapse of the USSR. Radical progress has not yet occurred: Russia has fewer resources and influence than the USSR, but has retained the status of a permanent member of the UN Security Council, nuclear missile parity with the United States, and the only military-industrial complex in the world alternative to the American one. All this causes poorly concealed irritation in Washington. I strongly suspect that we are approaching the moment of the third change in the rules of the game - and this is much more dangerous than the so-called Cold War...
The English politician, former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, in the American city of Fulton, declared the special responsibility of Great Britain and the United States in containing the USSR and communism. Churchill's Fulton speech is considered one of the key moments of the beginning of the Cold War.
In the winter of 1946, Churchill, who had resigned as prime minister after the defeat of the Tory party in the elections in the summer of 1945, came to the United States on vacation. Even before leaving London, he received an invitation through US President Harry Truman to speak at the Presbyterian Westminster Men's College in the provincial town of Fulton (Missouri). Since 1937, a local private foundation has been organizing annual lectures there on world issues, given by people of “international reputation” for a fee of five thousand dollars. Having refused the fee, Churchill, nevertheless, considered it important to speak out about the post-war structure of the world.
The performance took place on the afternoon of March 5th. Truman, who arrived with Churchill, introduced the guest to the audience as an “outstanding citizen of the world.”
Emphasizing that he was speaking as a private person, Churchill framed his speech in the form of “honest and true advice” to Americans to jointly fight against the two “main disasters” - wars and tyranny.
According to Churchill's definition, an "iron curtain" has fallen over Europe "from Stettin on the Baltic to Trieste on the Adriatic", the states of Central and Eastern Europe are governed by "police governments" and are subject to the influence and control of Moscow. She also leads communist “fifth columns” around the world, thereby challenging “Christian civilization.” Churchill spoke about the unpredictability of Soviet Russia, its desire to limitlessly spread its “power and doctrines,” and therefore called on Great Britain and the United States to “tirelessly and fearlessly” promote the principles of freedom and human rights as “the joint heritage of the English-speaking world.” In addition, as Churchill said, the Russians understand only the language of force and despise military weakness, so the small superiority of forces on the enemy’s side leads them into the “temptation of testing their strength.” Thus, according to the speaker, Western allies must ensure themselves “quite striking superiority,” including in atomic weapons as an effective deterrent.
Joseph Stalin, in an interview with the Pravda newspaper on March 14, called Churchill’s speech “a dangerous act designed to sow the seeds of discord between the allied states and complicate their cooperation,” and Churchill himself as a “warmonger,” comparing him to Hitler.
As Stalin noted, Hitler started the war by declaring that only German-speaking people were a “full-fledged nation,” and Churchill began by saying that only English-speaking nations were called upon to decide the destinies of the world.
Churchill himself, in a letter to Prime Minister Clement Attlee and Foreign Minister Ernest Bavin from the British Embassy in Washington, admitted that the “certain demonstration of the power and strength of resistance” heard in his speech was important from the point of view of “settlement of relations with Russia.” Churchill expressed the hope that this would become the "prevailing opinion" in the United States.
It is known that even before Churchill’s speech in Fulton, in February 1946, American diplomat George Kennan, in the so-called “long telegram” from the embassy in Moscow, outlined the basic principles of the policy of “containment” of the USSR. From his point of view, the United States had to react firmly and consistently to every attempt by the USSR to expand its sphere of influence.
Events after Fulton developed according to the Churchillian scenario of growing Anglo-American unity in the struggle between two worlds. Churchill's speech anticipated the main features of the coming Cold War era with its bipolar division of the world, the central role of the Anglo-American "axis" in the Western system, ideological confrontation and the pursuit of military superiority.
American policy towards the USSR took a new direction: a course was taken to limit the spread of communist ideology in Western European countries and the Soviet Union's support for communist movements.
The material was prepared based on information from open sources
2. Text of Churchill’s “Fulton speech”
I am happy to have arrived at Westminster College today and to have been awarded my degree by you. The name "Westminster" says something to me. I think I heard it somewhere. After all, it was at Westminster that I received the lion's share of my education in the field of politics, dialectics, rhetoric, and something else. In essence, you and I were educated in the same or similar educational institutions.
It is also an honor, perhaps almost unique, for a private citizen to be introduced to an academic audience by the President of the United States. Burdened with many different concerns and responsibilities, which he does not crave, but which he does not run from, the President traveled 1000 miles in order to honor our meeting today with his presence and emphasize its significance, giving me the opportunity to address this kindred country, my compatriots on the other side of the ocean, and maybe also to some other countries.
The President has already told you his desire, which I am sure coincides with yours, that I should be completely free to give you my honest and faithful advice in these troubled and troubled times.
I will, of course, take advantage of this freedom given to me and feel all the more entitled to do so since whatever personal ambitions I may have had in my younger years have long been satisfied beyond my greatest dreams. I must, however, make it clear that I have neither official assignment nor status for this kind of speech, and I speak only on my own behalf. So what you see is only what you see.
Therefore, I can take the liberty of reflecting on the experiences of the life I have lived to reflect on the problems that beset us immediately after our complete victory on the battlefields, and try to do my best to ensure the preservation of what was gained with such sacrifice and suffering for the sake of the future glory and security of humanity.
The United States is currently at the pinnacle of global power. Today is a solemn moment for American democracy, for along with its superior power it has accepted an incredible responsibility to the future. As you look around, you should feel not only a sense of accomplishment, but also concern that you may not be up to par with what is expected of you. The opportunity is there, and it is completely clear to both our countries. To reject them, ignore them, or squander them uselessly would be to incur endless reproaches of future times.
Constancy of thought, perseverance in achieving the goal and great simplicity of decisions should guide and determine the behavior of the English-speaking countries in time of peace, as it did in time of war. We must and, I think, can rise to the occasion of this strict requirement.
When the US military is faced with a serious situation, it usually prefaces its directives with the words "overall strategic concept." There is wisdom in this because having such a concept leads to clarity of thinking. The general strategic concept that we must adhere to today is nothing less than the security and well-being, freedom and progress of all families, all people in all countries. I refer primarily to the millions of cottages and tenement houses whose inhabitants, despite the vicissitudes and difficulties of life, strive to protect their households from hardship and to raise their families in the fear of the Lord or based on ethical principles, which often play an important role. To ensure the safety of these countless dwellings, they must be protected from two main evils - war and tyranny. Everyone knows the terrible shock experienced by any family when the curse of war falls on its breadwinner, who works for her and overcomes the hardships of life. The terrible destruction of Europe with all its former values and a large part of Asia yawns before our eyes. When the intentions of malicious people or the aggressive aspirations of powerful powers destroy the foundations of civilized society in many parts of the world, ordinary people are faced with difficulties that they cannot cope with. For them, everything is distorted, broken, or completely ground into powder.
Standing here on this quiet day, I shudder to think about what is happening in real life to millions of people and what will happen to them when famine hits the planet. No one can calculate what is called “the incalculable sum of human suffering.” Our main task and responsibility is to protect the families of ordinary people from the horrors and misfortunes of another war. We all agree on this.
Our American military colleagues, after they have defined the “overall strategic concept” and calculated all available resources, always move on to the next stage - the search for means of its implementation. There is also general agreement on this issue. A world organization has already been formed with the fundamental goal of preventing war. The UN, the successor to the League of Nations with the crucial addition of the United States and all that means, has already begun its work. We must ensure the success of this activity, so that it is real and not fictitious, so that this organization is a force capable of action and not just shaking the air, and so that it becomes a genuine Temple of Peace, in which the battle shields of many countries can be hung , and not just chopping down the world's Tower of Babel. Before we can free ourselves from the necessity of national armaments for self-preservation, we must be sure that our temple is not built on quicksand or mire, but on a solid rocky foundation. All who have their eyes open know that our journey will be difficult and long, but if we firmly follow the course that we followed during the two world wars (and, unfortunately, did not follow in between), then I have there is no doubt that in the end we will be able to achieve our common goal.
Here I also have a practical proposal for action. Courts cannot function without sheriffs and constables. The United Nations must immediately begin equipping an international military force. In such a matter we can only advance gradually, but we must start now. I propose that all States be invited to place at the disposal of the World Organization a number of air force squadrons. These squadrons would be trained in their own countries, but would be transferred on a rotating basis from one country to another. The pilots would wear the military uniform of their countries, but with different insignia. They could not be required to take part in hostilities against their own country, but in all other respects they would be directed by the World Organization. Such forces could begin at a modest level and be built upon as confidence grows. I wanted this done after the First World War and I truly believe it can be done now.
However, it would be wrong and imprudent to trust the secret information and experience of creating an atomic bomb, currently possessed by the United States, Great Britain and Canada, to a World Organization still in its infancy. It would be criminal madness to let these weapons go adrift in a world still in turmoil and ununited. Not a single person in any country has slept worse because the information, means and raw materials for creating this bomb are now concentrated mainly in American hands. I don’t think we would be sleeping so peacefully now if the situation were reversed and some communist or neo-fascist state monopolized this terrible remedy for some time. The mere fear of it would be enough for totalitarian systems to impose themselves on the free democratic world. The horrific consequences of this would be beyond human imagination. The Lord has commanded that this should not happen, and we still have time to put our house in order before such a danger arises. But even if we spare no effort, we would still have to have a superiority sufficiently striking to have an effective deterrent against its use or the threat of such use by other countries. Ultimately, when the true brotherhood of man would be actually realized in the form of some World Organization, which would have all the necessary practical means to make it effective, such powers could be transferred to it.
Now I come to the second danger that awaits families and ordinary people, namely, tyranny. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that the freedoms enjoyed by citizens throughout the British Empire do not apply in a significant number of countries; some of them are quite powerful. In these states, power is imposed on the common people by pervasive police governments. The power of the state is exercised without limitation by dictators or closely knit oligarchies that rule with the help of a privileged party and political police. At the present time, when difficulties are still so many, it cannot be our duty to interfere forcibly in the internal affairs of countries with which we are not at war. We must unceasingly and fearlessly proclaim the great principles of liberty and human rights which are the common heritage of the English-speaking world and which, in the development of the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the law of Habeas Corpus, the trial by jury and the English common law, found their most famous expression in the Declaration of Independence. They mean that the people of any country have the right and ought to be able, by constitutional action, by free unfalsified elections by secret ballot, to choose or change the character or form of government under which they live; that freedom of speech and press should prevail; that the courts, independent of the executive power, and not subject to the influence of any party, should give effect to laws which have received the approval of a large majority of the people, or have been sanctified by time or custom. These are fundamental freedom rights that every home should know. This is the message of the British and American people to all humanity. Let us preach what we do and practice what we preach.
So, I have identified two main dangers threatening people's families. I did not talk about poverty and deprivation, which often worry people the most. But if the dangers of war and tyranny are eliminated, then, undoubtedly, science and cooperation in the next few years, at most a few decades, will bring to the world, which has gone through the cruel school of war, an increase in material well-being unprecedented in the history of mankind. At present, in this sad and numbing moment, we are oppressed by hunger and despondency that have come after our colossal struggle. But this will all pass, and perhaps quickly, and there are no reasons, other than human stupidity and inhuman crime, that would prevent all countries, without exception, from taking advantage of the advent of an age of abundance. I often quote the words I heard fifty years ago from the great Irish-American speaker and friend Burke Cochrane: “There is enough for everyone. The earth is a generous mother. She will provide complete abundance of food for all her children, if only they will cultivate it in justice and peace.”
So, so far we are in complete agreement. Now, continuing to use the methodology of our general strategic concept, I come to the main thing I wanted to say here. Neither the effective prevention of war nor the permanent expansion of the influence of the World Organization can be achieved without the fraternal union of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and the British Empire and the United States. We have no time for platitudes, and I dare to speak specifically. Fraternal union requires not only the growth of friendship and mutual understanding between our sister systems of society, but also the continuation of close ties between our militaries, which should lead to the joint study of potential dangers, the compatibility of weapons and military regulations, and the exchange of officers and cadets of military technical colleges. It would also mean the continued use of existing capabilities to ensure mutual security through the shared use of all naval and air force bases. This would possibly double the mobility of the US navy and air force. This would greatly increase the mobility of the British Empire's armed forces and, as the world calmed down, provide significant financial savings. We already share a number of islands; in the near future, other islands may come into joint use. The US already has a permanent defense agreement with the Dominion of Canada, which is deeply loyal to the British Commonwealth and Empire. This agreement is more powerful than many of those often negotiated within formal alliances. This principle should be extended to all countries of the British Commonwealth with full reciprocity. This way and only this way we can, no matter what happens, protect ourselves and work together in the name of high and simple goals that are dear to us and not harmful to anyone. At the very last stage, the idea of common citizenship can be realized (and, I believe, will ultimately be realized), but we can easily leave this question to the discretion of fate, whose hand extended towards us so many of us already clearly see.
There is, however, one important question we must ask ourselves. Would a special relationship between the United States and the British Commonwealth be compatible with a fundamental allegiance to the World Organization? My answer: such a relationship, on the contrary, is probably the only means by which this organization can gain status and power. Special relations already exist between the United States and Canada and the South American republics. We also have a 20-year agreement on cooperation and mutual assistance with Russia. I agree with the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Bevin, that this treaty, to the extent that it depends on us, can be concluded for 50 years. Our only goal is mutual assistance and cooperation. Our alliance with Portugal produced fruitful results at critical moments in the last war. None of these agreements conflict with the general interests of the world agreement. On the contrary, they can help the work of the World Organization. “There is room for everyone in the house of the Lord.” A special relationship between the United Nations, which is not aggressive against any country and does not carry within it plans incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations, is not only not harmful, but useful and, I believe, necessary.
I have already spoken about the Temple of Peace. Workers from all countries must build this Temple. If two of these builders know each other especially well and are old friends, if their families are mixed and, to quote the clever words that caught my eye the day before yesterday, “if they have faith in each other’s goals, hope for each other’s future and forbearance to each other's shortcomings," then why can't they work together towards a common goal as friends and partners? Why can’t they share tools and thus increase each other’s ability to work? They not only can, but must do this, otherwise the Temple will not be built or will collapse after construction by mediocre students, and we will again, for the third time, study in the school of war, which will be incomparably more cruel than the one from which we just left.
The times of the Middle Ages may return, and on the sparkling wings of science the Stone Age may return, and what can now be showered on humanity with immeasurable material benefits may lead to its complete destruction. I therefore appeal: be vigilant. Perhaps there is little time left. Let's not let things happen until it's too late. If we want that fraternal union of which I have just spoken, with all the additional strength and security which both our countries can derive from it, let us make this great cause known everywhere and play its part in strengthening the foundations of peace. It is better to prevent a disease than to treat it.
A shadow has fallen on the picture of the world, so recently illuminated by the victory of the Allies. No one knows what Soviet Russia and its international communist organization intend to do in the near future and what the limits, if any, are to their expansionist and religious tendencies. I deeply admire and honor the valiant Russian people and my wartime comrade, Marshal Stalin. In England - and I have no doubt here too - there is deep sympathy and good will for all the peoples of Russia and a determination to overcome numerous differences and breakdowns in the name of establishing lasting friendship. We understand that Russia needs to ensure the security of its western borders from a possible resumption of German aggression. We are glad to see it in its rightful place among the world's leading powers. We salute her flag on the seas. And above all, we welcome the constant, frequent and strengthening ties between the Russian and our peoples on both sides of the Atlantic. However, I consider it my duty to state to you some facts—I am sure that you wish me to state to you the facts as they appear to me—about the present situation in Europe.
From Stettin on the Baltic to Trieste on the Adriatic, an iron curtain fell across 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 of these famous cities and the populations in their areas fell within what I call the Soviet sphere, all of them in one form or another subject not only to Soviet influence, but also to the significant and increasing control of Moscow. Only Athens, with its immortal glory, can freely determine its future in elections with the participation of British, American and French observers. The Polish government, under Russian domination, is encouraged to make enormous and unjust encroachments on Germany, leading to the mass expulsion of millions of Germans on a deplorable and unprecedented scale. The Communist parties, which were very small in all these states of Eastern Europe, have achieved exceptional power, far exceeding their numbers, and are everywhere seeking to establish totalitarian control. Almost all of these countries are run by police governments, and to this day, with the exception of Czechoslovakia, they have no true democracy. Turkey and Persia are deeply concerned and concerned about the claims being made against them and the pressure they are being subjected to from the Moscow government. In Berlin, the Russians are attempting to create a quasi-communist party in their zone of occupied Germany by granting special privileges to groups of left-wing German leaders.
After the fighting last June, the American and British armies, in accordance with an earlier agreement, withdrew to the West along a front of nearly 400 miles, to a depth in some cases reaching 150 miles, so that our Russian allies would occupy this vast territory that they had conquered Western democracies.
If the Soviet Government now tries by separate action to create a pro-Communist Germany in its zone, this will cause new serious difficulties in the British and American zones and will give the defeated Germans the opportunity to bargain between the Soviets and the Western democracies. Whatever conclusions can be drawn from these facts - and these are all facts - this will clearly not be the liberated Europe for which we fought. And not Europe, which has the necessary prerequisites for creating a lasting peace.
The security of the world requires a new unity in Europe, from which neither side should be alienated forever. The quarrels of these powerful indigenous races in Europe resulted in the world wars that we witnessed or that broke out in former times. Twice during our lifetime the United States, against its wishes and traditions and against arguments which cannot be misunderstood, has been drawn by irresistible forces into these wars in order to secure the victory of a just cause, but only after terrible carnage and devastation. Twice the United States was forced to send millions of its young men overseas to war. But at present, war can befall any country, no matter where it is between sunset and dawn. We must, of course, act with the conscious aim of the great pacification of Europe within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter. This, in my opinion, is a policy of exceptional importance.
On the other side of the Iron Curtain that has descended across Europe, there are other reasons for concern. In Italy, the activities of the Communist Party were seriously constrained by the need to support the claims of the Communist-trained Marshal Tito to former Italian territory in the center of the Adriatic. However, the situation in Italy remains uncertain. Again, it is impossible to imagine a restored Europe without a strong France. All my life I have advocated for a strong France and never, even in the darkest times, have I lost faith in its future. And now I do not lose this faith. However, in many countries around the world, far from the borders of Russia, communist fifth columns have been created, which act in complete unity and absolute obedience to the directives they receive from the communist center. With the exception of the British Commonwealth and the United States, where communism is in its infancy, the communist parties, or fifth columns, pose an ever-increasing challenge and danger to Christian civilization. All these are painful facts that have to be talked about immediately after the victory achieved by such a magnificent comradeship in arms in the name of peace and democracy. But it would be extremely unwise not to see them while there is still time. There are also concerns about prospects in the Far East, especially Manchuria. The agreement reached in Yalta, to which I was involved, was extremely favorable for Russia. But it was concluded at a time when no one could say that the war would end in the summer or fall of 1945, and when the war with Japan was expected to continue within 18 months of the end of the war with Germany. In your country you are so well informed about the Far East and are such loyal friends of China that there is no need for me to dwell on the situation there.
I felt obliged to outline to you the shadow that, both in the West and in the East, falls over the whole world. At the time of the Treaty of Versailles I was a minister and intimate friend of Mr. Lloyd George, who headed the British delegation to Versailles. I did not agree with much of what was done there, but I have a very vivid impression of the situation at that time, and it pains me to compare it with the present. These were times of great expectation and boundless confidence that there would be no more wars and that the League of Nations would become all-powerful. Today I do not see or feel such confidence and such hope in our tormented world.
On the other hand, I drive away the idea that a new war is inevitable, especially in the very near future. And precisely because I am confident that our destinies are in our hands and we are able to save the future, I consider it my duty to speak out on this issue, since I have the opportunity and opportunity to do so. I don't believe that Russia wants war. What it wants is the fruits of war and the unlimited expansion of its power and doctrines. But what we must think about here today, while there is still time, is to prevent wars forever and create conditions for freedom and democracy as quickly as possible in all countries. Our difficulties and dangers will not disappear if we turn a blind eye to them or simply wait for something to happen or pursue a policy of appeasement. We need to achieve a settlement, and the longer it takes, the more difficult it will be and the more formidable the dangers before us will become. From what I observed in the behavior of our Russian friends and allies during the war, I came to the conclusion that they respect nothing more than strength, and have no less respect for anything than military weakness. For this reason the old doctrine of the balance of power is no longer applicable. We cannot allow ourselves - as far as it is in our power - to act from a position of small advantage, which leads to the temptation to try our strength. If the Western democracies stand together in their firm commitment to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, their influence on the development of these principles will be enormous and it is unlikely that anyone will be able to shake them. If, however, they are disunited or unable to fulfill their duty, and if they miss these decisive years, then disaster will indeed befall us.
Last time, observing such a development of events, I cried out loudly to my compatriots and to the whole world, but no one wanted to listen. Until 1933 or even until 1935, Germany could have been saved from the terrible fate that befell it, and we would have been spared the misfortunes that Hitler brought upon humanity. Never in history has there been a war that could have been more easily prevented by timely action than the one that has just devastated vast areas of the globe. It, I am convinced, could have been prevented without firing a shot, and today Germany would have been a powerful, prosperous and respected country; but then they didn’t want to listen to me, and one after another we found ourselves drawn into a terrible tornado. We must not allow this to happen again.
Now this can only be achieved by achieving today, in 1946, a good understanding with Russia on all issues under the general auspices of the United Nations, maintaining through this world instrument this good understanding for many years, drawing on the full power of the English-speaking world and all those who is associated with him. Let no one underestimate the formidable power of the British Empire and Commonwealth. May you see 46 million people on our island who are food insecure, and may we have difficulty rebuilding our industry and export trade after six years of desperate war efforts; do not think that we cannot pass through this dark period of hardship as we passed through the glorious years of suffering, or that in half a century there will not be 70 or 80 million of us living throughout the world and united in the defense of our traditions, our image life and those universal values that you and I profess. If the people of the British Commonwealth and the United States act together, for all that such cooperation means in the air, at sea, in science and economics, then that turbulent, unstable balance of power which would tempt ambition or adventurism will be eliminated. On the contrary, there will be complete confidence in safety. If we faithfully observe the Charter of the United Nations, and move forward with calm and sober strength, without laying claim to foreign lands and wealth, and without seeking to establish arbitrary control over the thoughts of men, if all the moral and material forces of Britain unite with yours in fraternal union, then broad paths to the future will open - not only for us, but for everyone, not only for our time, but also for the century ahead.
From the book Churchill author Bedarida Francois From the book Pages of Diplomatic History author Berezhkov Valentin Mikhailovich From the book Secret Missions [collection] by Colvin IChurchill's Balkan adventure In subsequent years, Churchill repeatedly tried to deny that, instead of Operation Overlord, he was making plans to invade the continent in the eastern Mediterranean, primarily in the Balkans. Of course, he had such plans, and they were
From the book Double Game by Colvin IChurchill's behind-the-scenes maneuvers On the way home from Tehran, while in Cairo, Churchill fell ill with pneumonia and lay in bed for several weeks. He was then transported to Marrakesh for further recovery. But even bedridden, the Prime Minister did not weaken his
From the book Memoirs of a Soviet diplomat (1925-1945) author Maisky Ivan MikhailovichChurchill's worries In letters to Roosevelt throughout the summer and autumn of 1944, the British prime minister again and again returned to the problem of relations with the Soviet Union in connection with the victorious advance of the Red Army to the west. Churchill was particularly concerned that
From the book The Riddle of Scapa Flow author Korganov AlexanderChapter 18 KILL CHURCHILL! Kill Churchill! Hitler gave this order while the Casablanca conference was taking place. Perhaps this was his response to the demand for unconditional surrender. Now it is difficult to say anything definite about this, since all the archives of the 2nd department
From the book Churchill without lies. Why do they hate him? by Bailey BorisChapter 18. KILL CHURCHILL! Kill Churchill! Hitler gave this order while the Casablanca conference was taking place. Perhaps this was his response to the demand for unconditional surrender. Now it is difficult to say anything definite about this, since all the archives of the 2nd department
From the book Selected Works. T. I. Poems, stories, stories, memories author Berestov Valentin DmitrievichChurchill's government Germany, without any warning, attacked Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg on May 10, 1940. Everything was done in the usual Hitlerite manner. At 3 o'clock in the morning, Wehrmacht units suddenly crossed the border and entered the territory of Holland and Belgium, and
From Churchill's book. Biography by Gilbert MartinIX Memoirs of Winston Churchill Evaluation of the actions of U-47 in Scapa Flow. In the midst of all these affairs, an event suddenly occurred that dealt a blow to the Admiralty in the most sensitive place. I mentioned the alarm caused by the rumor of the appearance of a German submarine in Scapa Flow, driving out the Grand
From the book Rescued Diaries and Personal Notes. The most complete edition author Beria Lavrenty PavlovichChurchill's Romance Novels Churchill was certainly no Don Juan. In the almost half a century that has passed since his death, no memoirs or documents have appeared to convict him of adultery. Winston's premarital love interests were well known even during
From the author's bookChurchill's Diet Around the world, Churchill had a strong reputation as a glutton and drunkard. One of Winston’s sins, undoubtedly, was gluttony, and he was not indifferent to alcohol, as well as to Havana cigars. However, neither a glutton nor a heavy smoker (cigars are still safer
From the author's bookDeath of Churchill Churchill had a philosophical attitude towards death. He said: “I am ready to meet the Creator, but I don’t know if the Creator is ready for such a difficult test as meeting me!” Churchill also stated: “I am not afraid of death, but I am going to do it in the best possible way.” April 8
From the author's bookImage of Churchill Churchill's successor as prime minister, Anthony Eden, once called him a brilliant showman. Winston’s friend, French writer Andre Maurois, argued: “Churchill is a great expert in the laws of psychology. He skillfully plays off his outlandish hat, his excessively thick
From the author's bookANECDOTE ABOUT CHURCHILL Guide, “Extra”, we are rushing to “Yar”! So we sang on the way from the Novgorod Kremlin, where we lived, to the Trade Side, where we were digging. The line that we shouted, calling ourselves for some reason the choir named after Sklifossovsky, was understandable only to us, Moscow
From the author's bookChapter 25 No Place for Churchill January 2, 1937 Churchill was in Chartwell, where he celebrated the New Year. There he learned that his friend, Foreign Office official Ralph Wigram, who had supplied him with information and who had recently been ill, had died
From the author's bookText of speech by L.P. Beria at a funeral meeting on March 9, 1953 during the funeral of I.V. Stalin Dear comrades, friends! It is difficult to express in words the feeling of great sorrow that our party and the people of our country, all progressive humanity, are experiencing these days. Stalin has passed away
Churchill played with words and meanings like Vivaldi played with the sound of a violin. He was eloquent, witty, caustic, rude, weighed every word or spoke rashly. The epistolary legacy of this great man is amazing, and much of what he said has become aphorisms and is now published in separate editions.
Most of us only know about W. Churchill's Fulton speech, while the Briton in history made several famous speeches that set an example and inspire thousands of people. It is possible that W. Churchill will have even more such speeches than other famous people. They are all different - some he read on the radio, others he spoke to graduates of colleges and schools, some lasted half an hour, others lasted a couple of sentences. But there is something unifying, something that characterizes other famous performances, something that overshadows artistic beauty. Depth. According to the testimony of contemporaries, during the war years, life in Britain practically came to a standstill during Churchill’s radio addresses. Children and adults, young and old gathered at the reception centers. His speeches not only inspired hope, they became a kind of ritual. History does not know such examples, and this makes it necessary to become familiar with at least part of the legacy of the British Prime Minister.
Parliamentary speeches of W. Churchill “Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat” and “Their Finest Hour”
On May 13, 1940, taking office as Prime Minister, Churchill, speaking about the upcoming trials of the war, used all his eloquence in a short address. His famous speech "Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat" is translated into Russian as "Blood, toil, tears and sweat." We are sure that this performance will not leave anyone indifferent. Judge for yourself - here is part of what was said:
I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We are facing a severe test. We face many long months of struggle and suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I answer: to wage war by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can bestow upon us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, the like of which has never been equaled in the dark and sorrowful record of human crimes.
This is our policy. What is our goal, you ask? I can answer in one word: victory - victory at any cost, victory despite all the horrors; victory, no matter how long and thorny the path to it may be; without victory we will not survive. It is necessary to understand: the British Empire will not be able to survive - everything for which it existed will perish, everything that humanity has defended for centuries, what it has strived for for centuries, and what it will strive for will perish. However, I accept my responsibilities with energy and hope. I am sure that people will not let our cause die.
Now I feel the right to demand help from everyone, and I say: “Let’s go forward together, combining our forces.”
From a rhetorical perspective, the strengths of this speech are directness, honesty, and confidence expressed. But what is the recipe for success? It is no secret that Churchill always thought through and competently approached his speeches. In addition to the general style of address, one should highlight the use of individual words, in particular, with the help of which the author shows his own position. When tied to the situation in which the speech was delivered, they look not only relevant, but also organic.
He is also a master at using summons. In the conditions of that time, appealing to global values (the existence of the British Empire), Churchill, with his appeals, addressed both the people whose support was needed and representatives of various political forces, painting a picture in such a way that there simply could not be two views on what was happening.
A month after his first speech as prime minister, England's ally France was defeated. W. Churchill's speech on this matter (“TheirFinestHour”; translated into Russian as “Their Finest Hour”) in the House of Commons on June 18 was no less impressive, but was more like a report with statistical data. With its most picturesque final part in the evening of the same day, he addressed the British nation. The short radio message became so popular that today it is considered one of the most famous speeches of a politician and an example of rhetorical skill:
Summing up this terrible conclusion, and soberly assessing the dangers that threaten us, I see serious reasons for vigilance and effort, but I see no reason for panic and fear. During the first four years of the last war, the Allies were plagued by continuous failures and disappointments... We repeatedly asked ourselves the question: “How will we achieve victory?” - and no one could give an exact answer to it until in the end, completely unexpectedly and suddenly, our terrible enemy capitulated to us, and we reveled in the victory so much that in our madness we threw away its fruits...
The battle, which General Weygand called the Battle of France, is over. I believe the Battle of Britain is about to begin. The existence of Christian civilization depends on the outcome of this battle. The lives of the British themselves depend on its outcome, as well as the preservation of the institutions of statehood and our empire. Very soon the full fury and power of the enemy will fall upon us, but Hitler knows that he will either have to crush us on this island or lose the war. If we can resist it, all of Europe can become free and a wide path to sun-drenched heights will open before the whole world. But if we fall, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and loved, will fall into the abyss of a new Middle Ages, which the luminaries of perverted science will make even darker and, perhaps, more protracted. Let us therefore turn to our duty and hold ourselves in such a way that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth of Nations are destined to exist for another thousand years, then, after a thousand years, people can say: “This was their finest hour.”
Already the first words of a speech allow the author to gain the attention of the audience. For this purpose, W. Churchill uses such methods as warning and increasing voltage. “To sum up this terrible conclusion...” - this phrase forces listeners to fully concentrate on what the speaker is saying.
The comparison he chose is indicative and very successful, based, among other things, on the author’s personal beliefs: if Germany wins, the world will face a new era of the Middle Ages. Based on the fact that Britain's duty to the entire Christian world (to some extent - hyperbolization is another technique) - to prevent such a scenario, a call for perseverance is built. It is very important that, despite the topic of the address, the speech is very poetic. Churchill gives analogies of the sunlit peaks that will open up to the whole world if Britain copes with its task. It's really motivating.
Fulton speech
Perhaps the most famous speech in the historical and political context by W. Churchill was delivered by him to graduates of Westminster College in Fulton, USA, on March 5, 1946. It was perceived by Soviet politicians as a signal for the beginning of the Cold War, but the British politician himself at that time was not an official. Labor was in power, while the Conservative Churchill only expressed his own views, defending the idea of the need for a close union between Great Britain and the United States. But his harsh views and assessments of communism were quickly picked up by the press, which especially liked the idea of an “Iron Curtain.” Thus, thanks to close attention from the public, the Fulton speech became one of the most famous in the history of the twentieth century. She summed up the new balance of power in the world, which has become bipolar, and the United States has taken the place of the sole leader of the West.
.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
In plain text. Winston Churchill's speech in Fulton. March 5, 1946
Today we periodically begin to remember the old speech of former British Prime Minister Churchill, which he delivered on March 5, 1946 in Fulton, America. The fact is that it was precisely that speech by the former ally of the USSR in the anti-Hitler coalition that is considered a turning point in relations between the West in the person of the USA and Great Britain and the Soviet Union, as well as the starting point of the Cold War.
Today it is very interesting to re-read this document - from the point of view of its argumentation and style - for the simple reason that the specter of a new Cold War has already materialized. That is, Cold War 2.0 is on the threshold.
Then it ended in geopolitical tragedy- the collapse of the USSR. Today, if we go by the words of the classic, this may end farce.
Therefore, it is useful to dig into the origins of the Cold War 1.0.
So, the floor to Mr. Churchill.
"I am delighted to have arrived at Westminster College today and to have been awarded my degree by you. The name 'Westminster' means something to me. I think I've heard it somewhere. It was at Westminster that I received the lion's share of my education in the field. politics, dialectics, rhetoric, and a few other things. In essence, you and I were educated in the same or similar institutions. It is also an honor, perhaps almost unique, for a private citizen to be introduced to an academic audience by the President of the United States. Burdened with many different concerns and responsibilities, which he does not crave, but which he does not run from, the President traveled 1000 miles in order to honor our meeting today with his presence and emphasize its significance, giving me the opportunity to address this kindred country, my compatriots on the other side of the ocean, and maybe also to some other countries.
The President has already told you his desire, which I am sure coincides with yours, that I should be completely free to give you my honest and faithful advice in these troubled and troubled times.
I will, of course, take advantage of this freedom given to me and feel all the more entitled to do so since whatever personal ambitions I may have had in my younger years have long been satisfied beyond my greatest dreams. I must, however, make it clear that I have neither official assignment nor status for this kind of speech, and I speak only on my own behalf. So what you see is only what you see.
Therefore, I can take the liberty of reflecting on the experiences of the life I have lived to reflect on the problems that beset us immediately after our complete victory on the battlefields, and try to do my best to ensure the preservation of what was gained with such sacrifice and suffering for the sake of the future glory and security of humanity.
The United States is currently at the pinnacle of global power. Today is a solemn moment for American democracy, for along with its superior power it has accepted an incredible responsibility to the future. As you look around, you should feel not only a sense of accomplishment, but also concern that you may not be up to par with what is expected of you. The opportunity is there, and it is completely clear to both our countries. To reject them, ignore them, or squander them uselessly would be to incur endless reproaches of future times.
Constancy of thought, perseverance in achieving the goal and great simplicity of decisions should guide and determine the behavior of the English-speaking countries in time of peace, as it did in time of war. We must and, I think, can rise to the occasion of this strict requirement.
When the US military is faced with a serious situation, it usually prefaces its directives with the words "overall strategic concept." There is wisdom in this because having such a concept leads to clarity of thinking. The general strategic concept that we must adhere to today is nothing less than the security and well-being, freedom and progress of all families, all people in all countries. I refer primarily to the millions of cottages and tenement houses whose inhabitants, despite the vicissitudes and difficulties of life, strive to protect their households from hardship and to raise their families in the fear of the Lord or based on ethical principles, which often play an important role. To ensure the safety of these countless dwellings, they must be protected from two main evils - war and tyranny. Everyone knows the terrible shock experienced by any family when the curse of war falls on its breadwinner, who works for her and overcomes the hardships of life. The terrible destruction of Europe with all its former values and a large part of Asia yawns before our eyes. When the intentions of malicious people or the aggressive aspirations of powerful powers destroy the foundations of civilized society in many parts of the world, ordinary people are faced with difficulties that they cannot cope with. For them, everything is distorted, broken, or completely ground into powder.
Standing here on this quiet day, I shudder to think about what is happening in real life to millions of people and what will happen to them when famine hits the planet. No one can calculate what is called "the incalculable sum of human suffering." Our main task and responsibility is to protect the families of ordinary people from the horrors and misfortunes of another war. We all agree on this.
Our American military colleagues, after they have defined the “overall strategic concept” and calculated all available resources, always move on to the next stage - the search for means of its implementation. There is also general agreement on this issue. A world organization has already been formed with the fundamental goal of preventing war. The UN, the successor to the League of Nations with the crucial addition of the United States and all that means, has already begun its work. We must ensure the success of this activity, so that it is real and not fictitious, so that this organization is a force capable of action and not just shaking the air, and so that it becomes a genuine Temple of Peace, in which the battle shields of many countries can be hung , and not just chopping down the world's Tower of Babel. Before we can free ourselves from the necessity of national armaments for self-preservation, we must be sure that our temple is not built on quicksand or mire, but on a solid rocky foundation. All who have their eyes open know that our journey will be difficult and long, but if we firmly follow the course that we followed during the two world wars (and, unfortunately, did not follow in between), then I have there is no doubt that in the end we will be able to achieve our common goal.
Here I also have a practical proposal for action. Courts cannot function without sheriffs and constables. The United Nations must immediately begin equipping an international military force. In such a matter we can only advance gradually, but we must start now. I propose that all States be invited to place at the disposal of the World Organization a number of air force squadrons. These squadrons would be trained in their own countries, but would be transferred on a rotating basis from one country to another. The pilots would wear the military uniform of their countries, but with different insignia. They could not be required to take part in hostilities against their own country, but in all other respects they would be directed by the World Organization. Such forces could begin at a modest level and be built upon as confidence grows. I wanted this done after the First World War and I truly believe it can be done now.
However, it would be wrong and imprudent to trust the secret information and experience of creating an atomic bomb, currently possessed by the United States, Great Britain and Canada, to a World Organization still in its infancy. It would be criminal madness to let these weapons go adrift in a world still in turmoil and ununited. Not a single person in any country has slept worse because the information, means and raw materials for creating this bomb are now concentrated mainly in American hands. I don’t think we would be sleeping so peacefully now if the situation were reversed, and some communist or neo-fascist state monopolized this terrible remedy for some time. The mere fear of it would be enough for totalitarian systems to impose themselves on the free democratic world. The horrific consequences of this would be beyond human imagination. The Lord has commanded that this should not happen, and we still have time to put our house in order before such a danger arises. But even if we spare no effort, we would still have to have a superiority sufficiently striking to have an effective deterrent against its use or the threat of such use by other countries. Ultimately, when the true brotherhood of man would be actually realized in the form of some World Organization, which would have all the necessary practical means to make it effective, such powers could be transferred to it.
Now I come to the second danger that awaits families and ordinary people, namely, tyranny. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that the freedoms enjoyed by citizens throughout the British Empire do not apply in a significant number of countries; some of them are quite powerful. In these states, power is imposed on the common people by pervasive police governments. The power of the state is exercised without limitation by dictators or closely knit oligarchies that rule with the help of a privileged party and political police. At the present time, when difficulties are still so many, it cannot be our duty to interfere forcibly in the internal affairs of countries with which we are not at war. We must unceasingly and fearlessly proclaim the great principles of liberty and human rights which are the common heritage of the English-speaking world and which, in the development of the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the law of Habeas Corpus, the trial by jury and the English common law, found their most famous expression in the Declaration of Independence. They mean that the people of any country have the right and ought to be able, by constitutional action, by free unfalsified elections by secret ballot, to choose or change the character or form of government under which they live; that freedom of speech and press should prevail; that the courts, independent of the executive power, and not subject to the influence of any party, should give effect to laws which have received the approval of a large majority of the people, or have been sanctified by time or custom. These are fundamental freedom rights that every home should know. This is the message of the British and American people to all humanity. Let us preach what we do and practice what we preach.
So, I have identified two main dangers threatening people's families. I did not talk about poverty and deprivation, which often worry people the most. But if the dangers of war and tyranny are eliminated, then, undoubtedly, science and cooperation in the next few years, at most a few decades, will bring to the world, which has gone through the cruel school of war, an increase in material well-being unprecedented in the history of mankind. At present, in this sad and numbing moment, we are oppressed by hunger and despondency that have come after our colossal struggle. But this will all pass, and perhaps quickly, and there are no reasons, other than human stupidity and inhuman crime, that would prevent all countries, without exception, from taking advantage of the advent of an age of abundance. I often quote the words that I heard fifty years ago from the great Irish-American orator and my friend Burke Cochrane: "There is enough for all. The earth is a generous mother. She will provide complete abundance of food for all her children, if only they will cultivate it in the right way." justice and peace."
So, so far we are in complete agreement. Now, continuing to use the methodology of our general strategic concept, I come to the main thing I wanted to say here. Neither the effective prevention of war nor the permanent expansion of the influence of the World Organization can be achieved without the fraternal union of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and the British Empire and the United States. We have no time for platitudes, and I dare to speak specifically. Fraternal union requires not only the growth of friendship and mutual understanding between our sister systems of society, but also the continuation of close ties between our militaries, which should lead to the joint study of potential dangers, the compatibility of weapons and military regulations, and the exchange of officers and cadets of military technical colleges. It would also mean the continued use of existing capabilities to ensure mutual security through the shared use of all naval and air force bases. This would possibly double the mobility of the US navy and air force. This would greatly increase the mobility of the British Empire's armed forces and, as the world calmed down, provide significant financial savings. We already share a number of islands; in the near future, other islands may come into joint use. The US already has a permanent defense agreement with the Dominion of Canada, which is deeply loyal to the British Commonwealth and Empire. This agreement is more powerful than many of those often negotiated within formal alliances. This principle should be extended to all countries of the British Commonwealth with full reciprocity. This way and only this way we can, no matter what happens, protect ourselves and work together in the name of high and simple goals that are dear to us and not harmful to anyone. At the very last stage, the idea of common citizenship can be realized (and, I believe, will ultimately be realized), but we can easily leave this question to the discretion of fate, whose hand extended towards us so many of us already clearly see.
There is, however, one important question we must ask ourselves. Would a special relationship between the United States and the British Commonwealth be compatible with a fundamental allegiance to the World Organization? My answer: such a relationship, on the contrary, is probably the only means by which this organization can gain status and power. Special relations already exist between the United States and Canada and the South American republics. We also have a 20-year agreement on cooperation and mutual assistance with Russia. I agree with the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Bevin, that this treaty, to the extent that it depends on us, can be concluded for 50 years. Our only goal is mutual assistance and cooperation. Our alliance with Portugal has been in force since 1384 and produced fruitful results at critical moments of the last war. None of these agreements conflict with the general interests of the world agreement. On the contrary, they can help the work of the World Organization. “There is room for everyone in the house of the Lord.” A special relationship between the United Nations, which is not aggressive against any country and does not carry within it plans incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations, is not only not harmful, but useful and, I believe, necessary.
I have already spoken about the Temple of Peace. Workers from all countries must build this Temple. If two of these builders know each other especially well and are old friends, if their families are mixed and, to quote the clever words that caught my eye the day before yesterday, "if they have faith in each other's goals, hope for each other's future and forbearance to each other's shortcomings," then why can't they work together towards a common goal as friends and partners? Why can’t they share tools and thus increase each other’s ability to work? They not only can, but must do this, otherwise the Temple will not be built or will collapse after construction by mediocre students, and we will again, for the third time, study in the school of war, which will be incomparably more cruel than the one from which we just left.
The times of the Middle Ages may return, and on the sparkling wings of science the Stone Age may return, and what can now be showered on humanity with immeasurable material benefits may lead to its complete destruction. I therefore appeal: be vigilant. Perhaps there is little time left. Let's not let things happen until it's too late. If we want that fraternal union of which I have just spoken, with all the additional strength and security which both our countries can derive from it, let us make this great cause known everywhere and play its part in strengthening the foundations of peace. It is better to prevent a disease than to treat it.
A shadow has fallen on the picture of the world, so recently illuminated by the victory of the Allies. No one knows what Soviet Russia and its international communist organization intend to do in the near future and what the limits, if any, are to their expansionist and religious tendencies. I deeply admire and honor the valiant Russian people and my wartime comrade, Marshal Stalin. In England - I have no doubt here too - there is deep sympathy and good will for all the peoples of Russia and a determination to overcome numerous differences and breakdowns in the name of establishing lasting friendship. We understand that Russia needs to ensure the security of its western borders from a possible resumption of German aggression. We are glad to see it in its rightful place among the world's leading powers. We salute her flag on the seas. And above all, we welcome the constant, frequent and strengthening ties between the Russian and our peoples on both sides of the Atlantic. However, I consider it my duty to present to you some facts - I am sure that you wish me to state to you the facts as they appear to me - about the present situation in Europe.
From Stettin on the Baltic to Trieste on the Adriatic, an iron curtain fell across 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 of these famous cities and the populations in their areas fell within what I call the Soviet sphere, all of them in one form or another subject not only to Soviet influence, but also to the significant and increasing control of Moscow. Only Athens, with its immortal glory, can freely determine its future in elections with the participation of British, American and French observers. The Polish government, under Russian domination, is encouraged to make enormous and unjust encroachments on Germany, leading to the mass expulsion of millions of Germans on a deplorable and unprecedented scale. The Communist parties, which were very small in all these states of Eastern Europe, have achieved exceptional power, far exceeding their numbers, and are everywhere seeking to establish totalitarian control. Almost all of these countries are run by police governments, and to this day, with the exception of Czechoslovakia, they have no true democracy. Turkey and Persia are deeply concerned and concerned about the claims being made against them and the pressure they are being subjected to from the Moscow government. In Berlin, the Russians are attempting to create a quasi-communist party in their zone of occupied Germany by granting special privileges to groups of left-wing German leaders.
After the fighting last June, the American and British armies, in accordance with an earlier agreement, withdrew to the West along a front of nearly 400 miles, to a depth in some cases reaching 150 miles, so that our Russian allies would occupy this vast territory that they had conquered Western democracies.
If the Soviet Government now tries by separate action to create a pro-Communist Germany in its zone, this will cause new serious difficulties in the British and American zones and will give the defeated Germans the opportunity to bargain between the Soviets and the Western democracies. Whatever conclusions can be drawn from these facts - and these are all facts - this will clearly not be the liberated Europe for which we fought. And not Europe, which has the necessary prerequisites for creating a lasting peace.
The security of the world requires a new unity in Europe, from which neither side should be alienated forever. The quarrels of these powerful indigenous races in Europe resulted in the world wars that we witnessed or that broke out in former times. Twice during our lifetime the United States, against its wishes and traditions and against arguments which cannot be misunderstood, has been drawn by irresistible forces into these wars in order to secure the victory of a just cause, but only after terrible carnage and devastation. Twice the United States was forced to send millions of its young men overseas to war. But at present, war can befall any country, no matter where it is between sunset and dawn. We must, of course, act with the conscious aim of the great pacification of Europe within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter. This, in my opinion, is a policy of exceptional importance.
On the other side of the Iron Curtain that has descended across Europe, there are other reasons for concern. In Italy, the activities of the Communist Party were seriously constrained by the need to support the claims of the Communist-trained Marshal Tito to former Italian territory in the center of the Adriatic. However, the situation in Italy remains uncertain. Again, it is impossible to imagine a restored Europe without a strong France. All my life I have advocated for a strong France and never, even in the darkest times, have I lost faith in its future. And now I do not lose this faith. However, in many countries around the world, far from the borders of Russia, communist fifth columns have been created, which act in complete unity and absolute obedience to the directives they receive from the communist center. With the exception of the British Commonwealth and the United States, where communism is in its infancy, the communist parties, or fifth columns, pose an ever-increasing challenge and danger to Christian civilization. All these are painful facts that have to be talked about immediately after the victory achieved by such a magnificent comradeship in arms in the name of peace and democracy. But it would be extremely unwise not to see them while there is still time. There are also concerns about prospects in the Far East, especially Manchuria. The agreement reached in Yalta, to which I was involved, was extremely favorable for Russia. But it was concluded at a time when no one could say that the war would end in the summer or fall of 1945, and when the war with Japan was expected to continue within 18 months of the end of the war with Germany. In your country you are so well informed about the Far East and are such loyal friends of China that there is no need for me to dwell on the situation there.
I felt obliged to outline to you the shadow that, both in the West and in the East, falls over the whole world. At the time of the Treaty of Versailles I was a minister and intimate friend of Mr. Lloyd George, who headed the British delegation to Versailles. I did not agree with much of what was done there, but I have a very vivid impression of the situation at that time, and it pains me to compare it with the present. These were times of great expectation and boundless confidence that there would be no more wars and that the League of Nations would become all-powerful. Today I do not see or feel such confidence and such hope in our tormented world.
On the other hand, I drive away the idea that a new war is inevitable, especially in the very near future. And precisely because I am confident that our destinies are in our hands and we are able to save the future, I consider it my duty to speak out on this issue, since I have the opportunity and opportunity to do so. I don't believe that Russia wants war. What it wants is the fruits of war and the unlimited expansion of its power and doctrines. But what we must think about here today, while there is still time, is to prevent wars forever and create conditions for freedom and democracy as quickly as possible in all countries. Our difficulties and dangers will not disappear if we turn a blind eye to them or simply wait for something to happen or pursue a policy of appeasement. We need to achieve a settlement, and the longer it takes, the more difficult it will be and the more formidable the dangers before us will become. From what I observed in the behavior of our Russian friends and allies during the war, I came to the conclusion that they respect nothing more than strength, and have no less respect for anything than military weakness. For this reason the old doctrine of the balance of power is no longer applicable. We cannot allow ourselves - as far as it is in our power - to act from a position of small advantage, which leads to the temptation to try our strength. If the Western democracies stand together in their firm commitment to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, their influence on the development of these principles will be enormous and it is unlikely that anyone will be able to shake them. If, however, they are disunited or unable to fulfill their duty, and if they miss these decisive years, then disaster will indeed befall us.
Last time, observing such a development of events, I cried out loudly to my compatriots and to the whole world, but no one wanted to listen. Until 1933 or even until 1935, Germany could have been saved from the terrible fate that befell it, and we would have been spared the misfortunes that Hitler brought upon humanity. Never in history has there been a war that could have been more easily prevented by timely action than the one that has just devastated vast areas of the globe. It, I am convinced, could have been prevented without firing a shot, and today Germany would have been a powerful, prosperous and respected country; but then they didn’t want to listen to me, and one after another we found ourselves drawn into a terrible tornado. We must not allow this to happen again.
Now this can only be achieved by achieving today, in 1946, a good understanding with Russia on all issues under the general auspices of the United Nations, maintaining through this world instrument this good understanding for many years, drawing on the full power of the English-speaking world and all those who is associated with him. Let no one underestimate the formidable power of the British Empire and Commonwealth. Even though you see 46 million people on our island who are food insecure, and even though we are having difficulty rebuilding our industry and export trade after 6 years of selfless war effort, do not think that we cannot get through this dark period of deprivation like this the same as we went through the glorious years of suffering, or that in half a century there will not be 70 or 80 million of us living around the world and united in defending our traditions, our way of life and those universal values that we profess. If the people of the British Commonwealth and the United States act together, for all that such cooperation means in the air, at sea, in science and economics, then that turbulent, unstable balance of power which would tempt ambition or adventurism will be eliminated. On the contrary, there will be complete confidence in safety. If we faithfully observe the Charter of the United Nations, and move forward with calm and sober strength, without laying claim to foreign lands and wealth, and without seeking to establish arbitrary control over the thoughts of men, if all the moral and material forces of Britain unite with yours in fraternal union, then "Wide paths to the future will open - not only for us, but for everyone, not only for our time, but also for the century ahead."
I will leave the text without lengthy comments - this historical document and its Epoch remained in the 20th century and in the Second Millennium.
But let’s not forget Churchill’s speech as an example of the Anglo-Saxon policy that has never changed, despite “what kind of Millennium it is.” (c) Boris Pasternak