Everyone understands that today we have become participants in a new great historical event, that the mass expulsion of Russian diplomats from Western countries is the beginning of a new "cold war"? On March 5, 1946, the First Cold War of the Western countries against Soviet Russia began with a speech by the British, Winston Churchill, which ended on August 24, 1991 with the complete collapse and disintegration of the USSR, the formation of new national states on the ruins of the empire. Our generation had a chance to become participants in these historical events, we are destined to destroy the Russian Empire to the end, to break tsarism and communism to the core - this is an important mission in which we are all participants. In 2014, Ukraine launched a war of independence against Russian aggression. Today the political situation in the world has radically changed - Western countries have also recognized the Russian Federation as their main enemy, and now Ukraine's foreign policy position has become immeasurably stronger. Today Ukraine has new chances to take more decisive steps towards integration into the EU and NATO.
British Prime Minister Theresa May is creating a new anti-Russian front today on March 26, 2018. Just like her great predecessor, Winston Churchill began creating an anti-Russian front on March 5, 1946 in Fulton, 72 years ago.
Hear the main points of this great speech:
“When the US military is faced with a serious situation, they usually preface their directives with the words 'overall strategic concept'. This has its own wisdom, since the presence of such a concept leads to clarity of thinking. The common strategic concept that we must adhere to today is nothing more than security and well-being, freedom and progress of all families, all people in all countries.
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. State power is exercised without restriction by dictators or tightly knit oligarchies that rule with the help of a privileged party and political police. At the present time, when there are still so many difficulties, it cannot be our responsibility to interfere violently in the internal affairs of countries with which we are not at war. We must relentlessly and fearlessly proclaim the great principles of freedom and human rights that are a shared legacy of the English-speaking world and which, following the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, the Jury and English Common Law, have found their most famous expression in the Declaration of Independence. They mean that the people of any country have the right and must be able to choose or change the nature or form of government in which they live by means of constitutional actions, through free, unfalsified elections with secret ballot; that freedom of speech and press should prevail; that courts, independent of the executive and not influenced by any party, must enforce laws that have received the approval of a large majority of the population or are time-honored or customary. These are fundamental rights to freedom that every home should know. This is the message of the British and American peoples to all mankind. Let's preach what we do and do what we preach.
… The iron curtain fell on the continent.
I do not believe that Russia wants war. What she wants is the fruits of war and the unlimited spread of her power and doctrine. But what we need to think about here today, while there is still time, is preventing wars forever and creating conditions for freedom and democracy as soon as possible in all countries. Our difficulties and dangers will not disappear if we close our eyes to them, or simply wait for what will happen, or pursue a policy of appeasement.
We need to achieve a settlement, and the longer it takes, the harder it will go and the more formidable the dangers will be before us. From what I observed in the behavior of our Russian friends and allies during the war, I derived the conviction that they respect nothing more than strength, and for nothing they have less respect 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 we can - to act from a position of small advantage, which introduces into the temptation to engage in a breakdown of strength. If Western democracies stand together in their firm commitment to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, their impact on the development of these principles will be enormous and hardly anyone will be able to shake them. If, however, they are disconnected or fail to fulfill their duty, and if they miss these decisive years, then indeed we will be hit by a catastrophe. "
Winston Churchill, 5 March 1946, Fulton. This speech began " cold war". The anti-Soviet front did not take shape at that time, for more than one year, and contacts with the USSR did not completely cut off the West's dialogue was not lost. But it was a relationship. which were determined not by good neighborliness, but simply by caution and security.
Today is the time for historic speeches. Time to remember Churchill.
For the first time since 2014, the West has carried out systemic anti-Russian actions aimed at curtailing not just economic contacts, but diplomatic relations themselves. The US expels 60 Russian diplomats, the UK expels 23 diplomats, dozens of Russian diplomats expel 14 countries European Union... And further anti-Russian actions continue.
Even Albania, which is not a member of the EU, today announced the expulsion of two Russian diplomats. No matter what compliments certain politicians in the EU make, no matter what congratulations Trump brings to Putin, the scenery does not affect strategic decisions in any way.
Russia is officially recognized as an enemy that is carrying out hostile aggressive actions against the countries of the West against Great Britain, a NATO country. And it was the war in Ukraine and our desperate resistance that created the basis for the West to make such a decision.
This political decision means that it is now impossible to lift economic sanctions against the Russian Federation as a result of the war in Ukraine.
I have no doubt that this "cold war" with our active participation will end with the same result as the first "Cold War" - defeat Russian Empire, the liberation of Crimea and Donbass, and other processes of collapse. Victory in the war with the Russian Federation today no longer seems to be a utopia - it is already a clearly understood and achievable strategy. Ukraine is the engine of many events now.
It is the effectiveness of building a democratic state, modern, not totalitarian, that will become the best anti-Putin propaganda and an example of a free democratic path for the new post-Putin Russia.
It is the reform of the army and the infliction of unacceptable losses on the front to the Russian invaders that will be the best demonstration of the impotence and weakness of Putinism.
Ukraine must join forces in order to realize a unique historical chance - the whole world is ready to support us so that we emerge victorious in the War of Independence. And we are obliged to use this chance and show that our generation is people capable of turning the wheel of history in the right direction.
The opinions expressed in the "Opinions" section convey the views of the authors themselves and do not necessarily reflect the position of the editorial board. The editors of the site are not responsible for the accuracy of such materials, and the site performs exclusively the role of a carrier
On March 5, 1946, in Fulton, Missouri, Winston Churchill made his famous speech, in which he said: "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, the Iron Curtain fell over Europe." The Cold War began.I am publishing Stalin's response to Churchill's Fulton speech.
ANSWER TO THE CORRESPONDENT OF "TRUTH"
Recently one of the Pravda correspondents asked Comrade Stalin to clarify a number of issues related to Mr. Churchill's speech. Comrade Stalin gave the appropriate explanations, which are given below in the form of answers to the correspondent's questions.
Question... How do you assess last speech Mr. Churchill, uttered by him in the United States of America?
Answer... I regard it as a dangerous act, calculated to sow the seeds of discord between the allied states and impede their cooperation.
Answer... Of course, yes. In fact, Mr. Churchill is now in the position of warmongers. And Mr. Churchill is not alone here - he has friends not only in England, but also in the United States of America.
It should be noted that Mr. Churchill and his friends are strikingly reminiscent of Hitler and his friends in this respect. Hitler began the cause of unleashing the war by proclaiming racial theory, declaring that only people speaking German represent a full-fledged nation. Mr. Churchill also begins the cause of unleashing war with racial theory, arguing that only nations speaking English language are full-fledged nations, called upon to decide the destinies of the whole world. German racial theory led Hitler and his friends to the conclusion that the Germans, as the only fully-fledged nation, should rule over other nations. The English racial theory leads Mr. Churchill and his friends to the conclusion that the nations that speak the English language, as the only full-fledged ones, should rule over the rest of the nations of the world.
In fact, Mr. Churchill and his friends in England and the United States are presenting something like an ultimatum to nations that do not speak English: accept our domination voluntarily, and then everything will be all right, otherwise war is inevitable.
But nations have shed their blood during five years of brutal war for the freedom and independence of their countries, not in order to replace Hitler rule with Churchill rule. It is likely, therefore, that nations that do not speak English, and at the same time constitute the vast majority of the world's population, will not agree to go into new slavery.
The tragedy of Mr. Churchill is that he, as an inveterate Tory, does not understand this simple and obvious truth.
Undoubtedly, Mr. Churchill's attitude is an attitude towards war, a call for war with the USSR. It is also clear that such an attitude of Mr. Churchill is incompatible with the existing treaty of alliance between Britain and the USSR. True, Mr. Churchill, in order to confuse readers, casually declares that the term of the Soviet-British treaty on mutual assistance and cooperation could well be extended to 50 years. But how can such a statement by Mr. Churchill be reconciled with his orientation towards war with the USSR, with his preaching of war against the USSR? It is clear that these things cannot be combined in any way. And if Mr. Churchill, who is calling for war with the Soviet Union, considers at the same time the possibility of extending the term of the Anglo-Soviet treaty to 50 years, this means that he regards this treaty as an empty piece of paper he needs only to cover it up and to disguise their anti-Soviet attitude. Therefore, one should not take seriously the false statements of Mr. Churchill's friends in England to extend the term of the Soviet-British treaty to 50 years or more. The extension of the contract does not make sense if one of the parties violates the contract and turns it into a blank piece of paper.
Question... How do you assess that part of Mr. Churchill's speech where he attacks the democratic system of our neighboring European states and where he criticizes the good-neighborly relations that have been established between these states and the Soviet Union?
Answer... This part of Mr. Churchill's speech is a mixture of elements of slander with elements of rudeness and tactlessness.
Mr. Churchill claims that "Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest, Sofia - all these famous cities and people in their areas are in the Soviet sphere and all are subject in one form or another not only to Soviet influence, but also to a large extent to Moscow's increasing control. " Mr. Churchill qualifies all of this as the borderless "expansionist tendencies" of the Soviet Union.
It doesn't take much work to show that Mr. Churchill is rudely and shamelessly slandering both Moscow and the named states neighboring the USSR.
First, it is completely absurd to talk about the exclusive control of the USSR in Vienna and Berlin, where there are Allied Control Councils of representatives of four states and where the USSR has only 1/4 of the votes. It happens that other people cannot but slander, but you still need to know when to stop.
Secondly, the following circumstance must not be forgotten. The Germans invaded the USSR through Finland, Poland, Romania, Hungary. The Germans could have invaded through these countries because in those countries there were then governments hostile to the Soviet Union. As a result of the German invasion Soviet Union irretrievably lost in battles with the Germans, as well as thanks to the German occupation and theft Soviet people about seven million people to German penal servitude. In other words, the Soviet Union lost several times more people than Britain and the United States of America combined. It is possible that in some places these colossal sacrifices are inclined to be forgotten. Soviet people, which ensured the liberation of Europe from the Nazi yoke. But the Soviet Union cannot forget about them. The question is, what can be surprising in the fact that the Soviet Union, wishing to secure itself for the future, is trying to ensure that in these countries there are governments loyal to the Soviet Union? How can you, without going crazy, qualify these peaceful aspirations of the Soviet Union as the expansionist tendencies of our state?
Mr. Churchill claims that "the Polish government, under Russian rule, was encouraged to make huge and unjust encroachments on Germany."
Every word here is rude and insulting slander. Modern democratic Poland is ruled by outstanding people... They proved in practice that they know how to defend the interests and dignity of their homeland in a way that their predecessors did not know how to do. What reason does Mr. Churchill have to assert that the leaders of modern Poland can allow the "domination" of representatives of any kind in their country? foreign states? Is it not because Mr. Churchill slanders the "Russians" here because he intends to sow the seeds of discord in relations between Poland and the Soviet Union? ..
Mr. Churchill is unhappy that Poland has made a turn in its policy towards friendship and alliance with the USSR. There was a time when elements of conflicts and contradictions prevailed in relations between Poland and the USSR. This circumstance made it possible for statesmen like Mr. Churchill to play on these contradictions, to take Poland into their hands under the guise of protection from the Russians, to intimidate Russia with the specter of war between her and Poland, and to retain their position of arbiter. But this time is a thing of the past, for the enmity between Poland and Russia has given way to friendship between them, and Poland, modern democratic Poland, no longer wants to be a playing ball in the hands of foreigners. It seems to me that it is precisely this circumstance that irritates Mr. Churchill and pushes him to rude, tactless antics against Poland. Is it a joke to say: he is not allowed to play at someone else's expense ...
As for Mr. Churchill's attacks on the Soviet Union in connection with the expansion of Poland's western borders at the expense of the Polish territories seized by the Germans in the past, here, it seems to me, he is clearly distorting the cards. As you know, the decision on Poland's western borders was made at the Berlin Conference of the Three Powers on the basis of Poland's demands. The Soviet Union has repeatedly stated that it considers Poland's demands to be correct and just. It is likely that Mr. Churchill is unhappy with this decision. But why does Mr. Churchill, sparing no arrows against the Russian position on this issue, hide from his readers the fact that the decision was taken at the Berlin Conference unanimously, that not only Russians, but also the British and Americans voted for the decision? Why did Mr. Churchill need to mislead people?
Mr. Churchill further argues that "the communist parties, which were very insignificant in all these eastern states of Europe, have reached an exceptional strength, far exceeding their numbers, and seek to establish totalitarian control everywhere, police governments prevail in almost all of these countries to this day. with the exception of Czechoslovakia, there is no real democracy in them. "
As you know, in England today the state is governed by one party, the Labor Party, and the opposition parties are deprived of the right to participate in the British government. This is what Mr. Churchill calls true democracy. In Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Hungary, a bloc of several parties runs - from four to six parties, and the opposition, if it is more or less loyal, is guaranteed the right to participate in the government. This is what Mr. Churchill calls totalitarianism, tyranny, police. Why, on what grounds - do not expect an answer from Mr. Churchill. Mr. Churchill does not understand in what a ridiculous position he puts himself with his loud speeches about totalitarianism, tyranny, police rule.
Mr. Churchill would like Poland to be ruled by Sosnkovsky and Anders, Yugoslavia by Mikhailovich and Pavelic, Romania by Prince Stirbei and Radescu, Hungary and Austria by some king from the House of Habsburg, etc. Mr. Churchill wants to assure us that these gentlemen from the fascist gateway can provide "genuine democracy." Such is the "democracy" of Mr. Churchill.
Mr. Churchill wanders about the truth when he speaks of the growing influence of the communist parties in Eastern Europe. It should be noted, however, that it is not entirely accurate. The influence of the communist parties has grown not only in Eastern Europe, but in almost all European countries where fascism previously dominated (Italy, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Finland) or where there was a German, Italian or Hungarian occupation (France, Belgium, Holland, Norway , Denmark, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece, Soviet Union, etc.).
The growing influence of the communists cannot be considered an accident. It is a completely natural phenomenon. The influence of the communists grew because in the difficult years of the domination of fascism in Europe, the communists turned out to be reliable, courageous, selfless fighters against the fascist regime, for the freedom of peoples. Mr. Churchill sometimes recalls in his speeches about "ordinary people from small houses", patting them on the shoulder in a lordly manner and pretending to be their friend. But these people are not as simple as they might seem at first glance. They, the "ordinary people", have their own views, their own policies, and they know how to stand up for themselves. It was they, the millions of these "ordinary people," who blackballed Mr. Churchill and his party in England, casting their votes to the Laborites. It was they, the millions of these "ordinary people", who isolated the reactionaries in Europe, supporters of cooperation with fascism and gave preference to the left-wing democratic parties. It was they, the millions of these "ordinary people", having tested the communists in the fire of struggle and resistance to fascism, decided that the communists fully deserve the people's trust. This is how the influence of the communists in Europe grew. This is the law of historical development.
Of course, Mr. Churchill does not like this development of events, and he sounds the alarm, appealing to force. But he also disliked the emergence of the Soviet regime in Russia after the First World War. He also sounded the alarm then and organized a military campaign "14 states" against Russia, setting himself the goal of turning back the wheel of history. But history turned out to be stronger than Churchill's intervention, and Mr. Churchill's quixotic manners led to the fact that he was then completely defeated. I do not know if Mr. Churchill and his friends will be able to organize a new campaign against the Second World War. " of Eastern Europe"But if they succeed - which is unlikely, because millions of" ordinary people "are guarding the cause of the world - then we can confidently say that they will be beaten just as they were beaten in the past, 26 years ago.
In the West, if not generally accepted, then the most widespread is the following version: the beginning of the "cold war" was laid by the actions of the Soviet Union in 1945, aimed at "Sovietizing" the countries of Eastern Europe, using the fact of the presence of Soviet troops there, as well as undermining democratic regimes in Western Europe with the help of local communist parties. The actions of the United States and other Western powers were, according to this version, forced, retaliatory, with the aim of preventing such a turn of affairs.
In this regard, it is interesting to begin with to reflect on the following. Let's say it really started with Stalin's attempts to instill in the countries of Eastern and Central Europe a way of life similar to the Soviet one, which was unacceptable for the West and caused a corresponding reaction on its part. But in this case, historians, apparently, cannot but ask the question: how and why did the Soviet troops end up in these countries?
This was first suggested to me by the following statement by the American historian Frederick Schumann in his lecture at Louisiana State University in March 1961: The Cold War, as we have known it for a dozen or more years, stems - believe it or not - from the difference in the responses of the Soviet Union and Western democracies to the common challenge posed by fascism in the 1930s ”. At first, this statement does not seem very clear, but if you think about it, it is difficult to disagree with the line of thought of the American historian.
The answer to the question why the situation in Europe by the end of the war developed in this way, in Schumann's opinion, lies in the "Munich Peace" of 1938, by the conclusion of which the Western powers betrayed Czechoslovakia and, in fact, gave Hitler complete freedom of action in Eastern Europe and in the Balkans with the rather obvious hope that he will attack the Soviet Union and leave the Western democracies alone. "Munich", from Schumann's point of view, in fact meant that Western democracies, in the erroneous desire for peace for themselves, sacrificed Eastern Europe, turning a blind eye to the fact that it would either fall under Nazi control, or be divided between Germany and the Soviet Union, or may fall under Russian control if Hitler's attempts to subjugate Russia fail, as they did. In addition, Schumann said, the delay in the opening by the Western powers of an effective second front against Germany in Europe until mid-1944 caused the advance of Soviet troops to the West further than would have happened with an earlier opening of the second front.
The decisive importance of this last factor was also pointed out by one of the first theoreticians and then critics of the Cold War, the prominent American diplomat and historian George Kennan. Noting the fallacy of the assertion that the situation that developed in Eastern Europe after the end of the war was the result of the Yalta agreements, Kennan wrote that the only possible way to prevent such a situation would be on the part of the Western governments “to create a successful second front in Europe in much more early dates thus ensuring that the Soviet and Allied armies meet further in the East than actually happened. "
Moreover, Kennan quite reasonably, in my opinion, saw a political relationship between the failure to fulfill the initial promise of the United States and Great Britain to open a second front in Europe in 1942 and the post-war situation in Eastern Europe. “When it was finally deemed impossible,” wrote Kennan, “to open a second front at some early date, the Allies had to sit idly by in the European theater month after month, while the Russians took all the blows of Hitler’s war machine. This gave Western statesmen - which I think was inevitable - a deep sense of guilt and inadequacy of their efforts. " It was this, according to Kennan, combined with fears that under such conditions Stalin could go to a separate peace with the Germans, allowing them to turn their armies against the Western powers, forced the British and American leaders to “adhere to a rather sympathetic and encouraging attitude towards the Union ". And these aspirations of his - to have a decisive influence on the situation in Eastern Europe and the Balkans - were by no means new to London and Washington. Stalin made them quite clear to British Foreign Minister Anthony Eden at the end of 1941, during the latter's visit to Moscow.
It is noteworthy that, considering this issue in a broader historical framework, Kennan, like Schumann, came to the conclusion that among the reasons for the post-war situation in Europe, one should recognize "the share of responsibility that the Western democracies themselves bear for the rise of Nazism in the first place."
So, if we proceed from the western version that the "cold war" began because the USSR used the presence of its troops in the countries of Eastern Europe to "Sovietize" the latter, then it turns out that in fact the Western powers themselves are to blame for that. that the Soviet troops were in these countries.
True, it can be said that, although the West is to blame for the root cause of the appearance of Soviet troops in the countries of Eastern and Central Europe ("Munich", "retreat" for delaying the opening of the second front), the Soviet Union, for its part, is guilty of having gone beyond what the Western powers agreed to, in particular in Yalta and Potsdam, regarding the extent and methods of implementing Soviet influence in these countries.
But, firstly, as the same Schumann and some other Western scholars justly noted, what was subsequently portrayed by London and Washington as a violation of the Yalta and Potsdam agreements would be more correct to call a violation of the Anglo-American interpretation of these agreements, and this is not at all necessary meant the departure of the Soviet Union from its own original interpretation of them.
Secondly, leaving aside for the time being the actual sequence of events (that is, when exactly the USSR switched to "Sovietization" of the Eastern European countries), it seems reasonable to pose the question as follows: could the Western powers at all expect that the Soviet Union, whose troops ended up in these countries due to the above circumstances, will it act differently? Did, say, the United States behave differently in the countries where its troops ended up? It is well known, for example, that the post-war constitution of Japan in 1946 was not written by the Japanese themselves, but at the headquarters of General MacArthur. There, a group of American officers were ordered to temporarily become "Thomas Jeffersons" and, within three weeks, by the birthday of George Washington (February 22), draw up a Japanese constitution. Then it was transferred to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and other leaders of the post-war Japanese government. The timid attempts of the Japanese to express their displeasure in this manner were resolutely suppressed by General MacArthur. On March 5, 1946, he declared "the satisfaction he had in proclaiming the decision of the emperor and the government of Japan to grant the Japanese people a new and enlightened constitution." So, as we can see, the methods used by the United States did not differ in better side from those that Stalin began to operate in Eastern Europe from a certain moment.
Thus, even if, I repeat, proceeding from the official Western version of the immediate causes and time of the Cold War, then with an objective historical approach to the consideration of this version, it turns out that the policy of the Western powers themselves in the pre-war period and during the war largely predetermined what happened after its end. Consequently, and with this version the Western powers bear, if not all, then a good half of the responsibility for the outbreak of the Cold War.
Meanwhile, the above official version the beginning of the Cold War is not shared by everyone, even in the West. A number of Western researchers are inclined, for example, to believe that the first act of the Cold War was the use by the United States of atomic bombs against Japan, bearing in mind that this step was dictated not by military necessity, but by the desire to demonstrate to the Soviet Union and the whole world its prevailing military power and thereby make a claim on the undeniable decisive role of the United States in world affairs after World War II. Thus, one of the leading British experts in the field of atomic energy, Professor P. Blackett, noting the lack of military expediency in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wrote in 1949 that “the dropping of atomic bombs was not so much the last act of World War II as the first big operation cold diplomatic war with Russia ".
The fact that there was no real need to use atomic bombs to defeat Japan is also clear from the conclusions made shortly after the end of the war by a group of American government specialists led by Paul Nitze. The secret review prepared by this group stated: "According to the authors of the review, Japan would definitely surrender before December 31, 1945, and in all likelihood, before November 1, 1945, even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped."
Therefore, Blackett's opinion that atomic bombings Japan were first big operation in the Cold War seems fair. But that doesn't mean they were the very first step in this new war. Otherwise, they could also be presented as a retaliatory action caused by the "bad behavior" of the Soviet Union in Europe, that is, it would fit into the official Western version of the emergence of the "cold war" solely through the fault of the Soviet Union. That is how former US Secretary of State James Byrnes reasoned when in 1957 he wrote that the use of atomic bombs against Japan was necessary in order to "make Russia more accommodating in Europe."
The facts, however, show that in reality the first "shots" in the Cold War were fired even earlier, almost immediately after the death of Franklin Roosevelt on April 12, 1945.
When the last shots of the Second World War died down, it seemed that the world had entered a new era in its development. The most difficult war has ended. After her, the very thought of a new war seemed blasphemous. More than ever, much has been done so that it does not happen again. Germany was not only defeated, it was occupied by the victors and the revival of German militarism now looked like an impossible task. The degree of cooperation that had been established between the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition also inspired optimism. Summit meetings of the Big Three have become regular. The coordination of military actions, the coordination of political approaches, and broad economic cooperation were carried out.
1.2. Berlin conference
The symbol of these relations was the third meeting of the Big Three - the Berlin Conference. It took place from July 17 to August 2, 1954 in the Berlin suburb of Potsdam. The USA, instead of Franklin Roosevelt, who died in April, was represented by Harry Truman, Great Britain - by Winston Churchill. However, the unexpected happened during the conference. In the first post-war parliamentary elections, the Conservatives, led by Churchill, were defeated. For the first time, most of the seats were won by Labor, their leader, Clement Attlee, headed the government and arrived in Potsdam. So the “big three” has been quite updated in comparison with the Crimean conference.
The Berlin Conference was not a Paris-style peace conference. For the simple reason that there was no one to make peace with. Germany was occupied, and power in its territory was exercised in four occupation zones by Great Britain, the Soviet Union, the United States and France. The main task of the conference was to work out the policy of the allied powers in Germany. It was decided to dissolve all National Socialist organizations; restore previously banned political parties and basic civil liberties; destroy the military industry; to dissolve the cartels that served in Nazi Germany as an instrument of the militarization of industry. The top Nazi leaders who fell into the hands of the allies, it was decided to put on trial a special International Tribunal.
1.3. The creation of the un
Somewhat earlier, from April 25 to June 26, 1945, in the spirit of the same desire for cooperation, a conference was held in San Francisco (USA), which completed the work on the creation of the UN. Its Charter was approved. It resembled the Charter of the League of Nations in many ways. The purpose of the new organization was the maintenance of international peace and security, the development of friendly relations between countries, the implementation of international cooperation in resolving problems of an economic, social and humanitarian nature. The UN was founded on the principle of equality of all members, peaceful settlement of disputes, refraining from threats to use force. At the same time, the UN did not have the right to interfere in internal affairs, except when such intervention is required to maintain peace.
1.4. Atomic bomb
In 1945, deep inequalities in power and strength existed between the two major victorious countries. Even before the war, the imbalances shifted in America's favor, especially in the economy. But hostilities pushed the two countries even further in the opposite direction. The war did not touch American soil: the battles were fought far from the shores of America. The US economy, which was the main supplier and financier of the entire victorious coalition, experienced an unprecedented leap between 1939 and 1945. The potential of the US industrial capacities increased by 50%, the production of goods increased by 2.5 times. 4 times more equipment was produced, 7 times more vehicles. Agricultural production increased by 36%. Wages grew, as did all incomes of the population.
The contrast between American living conditions and the poverty in which the Soviet people lived was very sharp. There was an obvious gap between the economies of the countries. The production of the Soviet ferrous metallurgy was 16-18% of the American level. The production of chemical products in the USA was 10-20 times higher than that of the USSR; production of the textile industry - 6-13 times. The situation was complemented by the presence of a dominant position in the United States throughout the world. The atomic bomb was born at the very last moment, as if specifically in order to give the overwhelming American superiority over the USSR an undoubted and threatening character. American leaders hoped that, thanks to their economic and scientific potential, they would be able to maintain a long-term monopoly on the possession of a new apocalyptic weapon. With the rapidly escalating deterioration in relations between Moscow and Washington, the bomb should naturally have worried Soviet leaders. The Americans were also the only owners of delivery vehicles - aircraft carriers and long-range bomber aircraft, capable of delivering nuclear warheads to targets in any part of the world. The United States was at that time inaccessible and more secure, it was the only country in the post-war years capable of determining the course of world politics.
In the United States, to a much greater extent than in the USSR, preparations were made to meet the revolutionary changes that the war had brought about in the world. In determining Washington's global policy, there was a desire to rebuild the entire external world at will and in accordance with its scale of values was stimulated by the ever-growing unity of world development, which was the inevitable result of economic growth and the development of modern means of communication.
America refused to understand that changes were taking place in Eastern Europe, determined primarily by internal local causes. The inability of the United States to come to terms with the presence of new revolutionary movements in the model of the world order forced their participants, and, above all, the communists, to turn their gaze to Moscow as the opposite pole of world politics, while the most reactionary forces saw Washington as a defender and leader. Under these conditions, the inevitable difficulties in the implementation of American claims gave rise to an ever-growing anti-Soviet anger in the United States. This is how the phenomenon that was later called the "cold war" arose, the main reason for which is the global inequality between the USSR and the United States.
Inequality also manifested itself in the possession of nuclear weapons. As is known, until 1949, the United States was the only country with an atomic bomb. The Americans did not hide that nuclear weapon They were perceived by them as an attribute of the might of a great power, as a means of intimidating a potential enemy - the USSR and its allies, as a means of pressure.
Stalin faced a difficult dilemma: whether to resist the pressure that his former allies, now armed with the atomic bomb, put on the USSR in conditions when the country was exhausted. Stalin was convinced that the United States and Britain would not dare to unleash a war, and he decided to choose the path of confrontation with the power of the West. This is a fundamental choice, since the main features of the future were predetermined by it.
The Soviet government decided to speed up the work on the manufacture of its own atomic bomb. In full measure, the work, carried out in strict secrecy, unfolded from August-September 1945. After Potsdam and Hiroshima, Stalin formed, under the supreme control of Beria, a special committee headed by People's Commissar Vannikov, called upon to direct all activities to create new weapons.
The intensification of the confrontation between the Soviet Union and Great Britain and the United States began to stasis as soon as purely military cooperation ceased. 1946 was a year of debate. Thanks to the agreements reached in December 1945 in Moscow, the diplomatic efforts of the victorious powers were aimed at preparing peace treaties with the younger allies of Nazi Germany: Italy, Finland, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary. Long months of difficult negotiations ensued, first at the Council of Foreign Ministers, then at the peace conference that took place in Paris in July-October with the participation of representatives of 21 countries, then again at the Council of Ministers. Finally, the contracts were prepared. During the period of negotiations, the USSR not only defended its right to preferential influence in the countries of Eastern Europe. To make these countries his friends, he fought to satisfy their claims against the great powers of the West. Stalin thus demonstrated his intention under no circumstances to abandon the political positions won in Eastern Europe.
At the peace conference, as well as at the first meeting of the United Nations, the USSR found itself alone whenever it came into conflict with two other great powers. Only the governments of Eastern Europe were on his side. The United States and Great Britain not only acted together, but were in a position when they wanted to oppose the vast majority of small countries.
The support of the position of the United States by most of the countries of the world was combined with their exclusive position as possessors of a monopoly on the atomic bomb: the Americans again demonstrated their power by conducting test explosions on Bikini Atoll in the summer of 1946. Stalin made a number of statements during this period with the aim of downplaying the significance of the new weapon. These statements set the tone for all Soviet propaganda. But the behavior of the representatives of the Soviet Union in private showed in reality their great concern. Modern historians admit that because of the inequality in the possession of atomic weapons, the Soviet Union and the world community itself were then going through "a very dangerous and difficult period."
Only the abandonment of the secret of the atomic bomb by the United States could help avoid the Cold War and the arms race. This was understood by scientists, that is, those people who knew that such a secret could not remain unrevealed for a long time. But the politicians did not have such courage of thinking as to abandon the new weapon only for the sake of appeasing a distant power, towards which they disliked and distrust, whose technical and economic capabilities they strongly doubted. American leaders had no desire to sacrifice what they saw as a solid foundation of their power: they even preferred not to share the technology of creating new weapons with their English friends.
As a result of these contradictory trends, a project was born to establish international control over atomic energy, known as the "Baruch Plan", after the American leader who was tasked with submitting it to the UN. In accordance with this plan, everything related to nuclear research and production had to be forcibly concentrated in several states, so that the management of the entire nuclear complex would be carried out by some kind of world power, functioning as a supranational body in which no country would have the right veto. Only after such a mechanism had been prepared, tested and put into operation, the United States, in the event of renouncing nuclear weapons, would consider its security sufficiently guaranteed.
The American proposal was met with disbelief in Moscow. From the point of view of the USSR, the "Baruch plan" was tantamount to transferring everything related to atomic energy into the hands of the United States, and, consequently, it was a form of legalizing the US nuclear monopoly, and possibly establishing it forever. About this Ya.N. Malik, a USSR diplomat, said at a meeting of the UN atomic commission (March 17).
In response, the Soviet Union put forward a counter-project: a proposal for a convention to ban nuclear weapons, including a commitment to destroy existing stockpiles. With regard to control over the implementation of these measures, Moscow's proposals were initially vague, and when clarifications were made, the American government considered them unacceptable, since the exercise of control had to be regulated within the framework of the UN Security Council, where the USSR had the opportunity to use the veto. The clash of these two concepts from the very beginning paralyzed efforts to destroy the problem and for many years rendered fruitless all discussions not only on this issue, but also on all disarmament projects initiated by the USSR since 1946. On the other hand, neither government was ready to conclude an agreement that would guarantee both the prohibition of atomic bombs and the corresponding control over its implementation.
In all the measures carried out by the USSR for its safety, two lines were observed.
The first, the main one, was that, regardless of any costs, concentrate efforts on the creation of Soviet atomic weapons, eliminate the US nuclear monopoly and thereby, if not eliminate, then significantly weaken the threat of an atomic attack on the USSR and its allies. Ultimately, this task was solved. In the TASS statement published on September 25, 1949, it was recalled that back in November 1947, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR V.M. Molotov made a statement regarding the secret of the atomic bomb, saying that this secret has long ceased to exist. This meant that the Soviet Union had already discovered the secret of atomic weapons and had it at its disposal. In the future, a quantitative build-up and improvement of these weapons was carried out.
Another line of the party and state leadership of the USSR on the issue of nuclear weapons was of a propagandistic nature. Not possessing an atomic bomb, the USSR began to conduct propaganda against the use of this terrible weapon, which attracted support from many political circles abroad.
This continued until 1949, that is, until the American monopoly on nuclear weapons was eliminated. After that, rivalry began between the USSR and the United States in the quantitative ratio of nuclear warheads. But since the superiority of the United States in the number of nuclear charges and their delivery vehicles was obvious, the publications of Soviet military specialists constantly emphasized that the outcome of a war that might begin between the Soviet Union and the United States would be decided not so much by atomic bombs as by conventional types of weapons, the number and the quality of troops, the talents of military leaders, the strength of the rear and the morale of the troops and the population, that is, such factors that even during the Great Patriotic War, Stalin called, constantly acting, determining the outcome of the war.
It follows from the above that atomic weapons played a leading role in the emergence of the Cold War. The American monopoly of nuclear weapons has been one of the reasons for the power of the United States. Possessing the atomic monopoly of the United States, they tried to implement those plans and those ideas that were beneficial to them directly. The USSR, which often saw in these plans an infringement of its interests, was promoting the prohibition of atomic weapons, but at the same time, very quickly, spending enormous economic resources, it created its own atomic bomb, which was done in 1949. The elimination of the United States' monopoly on nuclear weapons led both the USSR and the United States to a grueling arms race. But at the same time, the atomic bomb, as a weapon capable of destroying not only an opponent, but the whole world, was a deterrent factor in unleashing a hot war.
MINISTRY OF GENERAL AND PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
NOVOSIBIRSK STATE TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
ESSAY
WHY HAS THE COLD WAR STARTED?
Teacher Pronin Vladimir Ilyich
Student Romanov Oleg Alexandrovich
Group Em - 95
NOVOSIBIRSK - 2000
Bibliography …………………………………………… .3
Foreword …………………………………………… ... 4
The concept of the "cold war" and the main reasons for it
occurrence …………………………………………… 4
Expansion of the spheres of influence of the USSR. ……………………… .5
Striving to expand the borders of the Soviet Union .. 8
Conclusion ……………………………………………… .11
Notes ……………………………………………… 12
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. The latest history of the Fatherland 20th century : Textbook. UNIVERSITY MANUAL : In 2 volumes. / Ed. A.R. Kifireva, E.M.Schagina, - M. : Vlados, 1998, 448 p.
2. History of Russia - Utopia in power: Textbook. UNIVERSITY MANUAL / ed. M. Geller, A. Nekrich, M. : Mick, 1996, 924 p.
3. Plunge into the bog / Compiled by And total. Ed. T.A. Notkina. - M. : Progress, 1991, 704 p.
4. Winston Churchill. “The second World War”. T3. "Military Publishing". 1991.
Eyes are envious, hands are raking. one
Foreword
Why did the Cold War start? - I asked many people this question before starting my work and received short answers. But after studying various literature on this topic, I realized that the answer is not at all short, because it is not for nothing that this question serves as the topic of the abstract.
The beginning of the abstract (epigraph) is a Russian folk proverb: the morality of all the causes of the Cold War. Five parts follow. The first one talks about the structure and methods of writing an abstract. In the second, the concept of the "cold war" is revealed and the main motives for its initiation are highlighted. In the third and fourth, the reasons for the outbreak of war are discussed in detail. And the fifth - conclusion, conclusions on the topic.
In writing the abstract, scientific literature, fiction, various newspapers and magazines were used. In order for the abstract to be designed for a large circle of readers, I explained all the historical terms.
The concept of the "cold war" and the main reasons for it
emergence
To begin with, let's figure out where the term "cold war" came from and what it means. The term “cold war” was coined by Churchill during his speech in Fulton (USA) on March 5, 1946 2, by the way, it was then that his speech became a symbol of the beginning of the “cold war”. This is "the policy of the reactionary circles of the imperialist states, which consists in whipping up tension and hostility in relations with the USSR and other socialist countries." This is how the Russian linguist S.I. Ozhegov. A more modern definition sounds like this: "A stage in the development of East-West relations (1945-1991), characterized by confrontation 4 and increased hostility, distrust of each other."
After the victorious end of the war, the USSR began to play one of the most important roles in the world arena. This is evidenced by the participation of our country in the creation of the UN, where the USSR was assigned the place of one of the permanent members of the Security Council. Mutual distrust is also emerging between the Soviet Union and the United States:
CCCP Concerned About US Nuclear Monopoly 5 While Americans and British Feared Soviet army- the most powerful in the world. And also the aforementioned Western countries were worried that the USSR began to lose its appearance as an enemy. The growth of sympathy for our country increased significantly after the victory in the Great Patriotic War. The increase in expansion 6 gave rise to Stalin's desire to expand the country's borders.
In general, "cold hostilities" began from the West. Thus, there are two main reasons for the emergence of the "cold war":
Expansion of the spheres of influence of the USSR (doctrine of containment of socialism)
Striving to expand the borders of the Soviet Union (the doctrine of rejecting socialism).
Expansion of spheres of influence
In the eyes of the world community, the USSR was losing its traditional appearance as an enemy, because the troops of the Red Army made a decisive contribution to the victory. Finland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, as well as the Balkans have now entered the orbit of Soviet influence. Communism gradually advanced in Europe. In Greece, there was a civil war, and in France and Italy, local communist parties exerted an increasing influence on the internal political situation. Between 1939 and 1946, the number of communists in Western Europe tripled. In Asia - China, Indonesia, Burma, the Philippines, Indonesia, India, a powerful movement for independence unfolded. In China, there was a civil war with an advantage in favor of the communists. Only Great Britain retained its position, albeit with a fairly shaken power, and the United States, which emerged from the war with unprecedented power.
The States wanted to help Europe get out of the economic post-war devastation and thereby prevent the development of communism, in this regard, Marshal's plan was developed 7. American leaders announced their intention to contain the spread of communism in every possible way. “The Soviet Union is striving for the unlimited expansion of its forces and its doctrines 8 - this posed a great danger to the great principles of freedom and human rights” 9. In February 1947, US President Truman launched a specific program of measures to save Europe from Soviet expansion ("Truman Doctrine" 10). The "Truman Doctrine" included the creation of the Alliance (NATO), which was formed in 1949 - this is a military-political bloc, which included the United States, England, France, Italy, Canada, Belgium, Holland, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Iceland , Luxembourg. In 1952, Greece and Turkey joined NATO, and in 1955, Germany.
The US government proposed to the Soviet Union and others European countries to take part in the plan for the reconstruction and restoration of Europe, but the USSR and under its pressure other Eastern European states abandoned the American position 11.
The leadership of the USSR was concerned not with uniting the efforts of all war-affected countries for the speedy restoration of the world economy, but with the creation of its own political and economic sphere, independent of the West, the center of which would be the Soviet Union, surrounded by satellite countries 12. The economies of these countries in the coming post-war years more and more subordinated to the Soviet economy with a tendency to turn into its appendage. Another source of recovery and enhancement economic strength The USSR was to serve as reparations 13, as well as industrial equipment exported by the Soviet Union as war booty. But the Soviet industry could not use a significant part of the equipment due to mismanagement. The most valuable equipment was turned into scrap iron.
It was envisaged to deliver a powerful military strike by the United States to the USSR: it was planned to drop 300 atomic bombs on 100 cities of our country. As declassified documents testify, the American military plans were based on the following provisions: a war with the USSR is a reality, if it is not possible to "discard"
world socialism; The USSR and its allies must not reach the level of the United States militarily and economically; The United States must be ready to be the first to use nuclear weapons.
In Western historiography, the beginning of the Cold War is associated with the aggressive post-war policy of the Soviet Union. Recently, supporters of this version have appeared in our country. The tale of the aggression of the Soviet people was used in the West for a certain ideological mood of the population.
Speaking in Fulton, Churchill said that Russians only respect military force and the West must move on to creating a significant military superiority over the USSR. Churchill's speech successfully camouflaged the fact that the military power of Britain and the United States was significantly superior to that of the Soviet Union. They had 167 aircraft carriers and 7,700 carrier-based aircraft (we did not have them at all), 2 times more submarines, 9 - battleships and large cruisers, 19 times more destroyers, as well as 4 air armies of strategic aviation, which included there were bombers with a flight range of 7300 km (the range of Soviet aviation did not exceed 1500-2000 km). In conclusion, Churchill said: “I do not believe that Soviet Russia wants war. She wants the fruits of war and the unlimited spread of her strength and her doctrines. "
In 1949, the Chinese communists after many years civil war won. This was not a great joy for Stalin, and the West believed the opposite. Thus, on the border of the USSR, a huge centralized state appeared with a population three times greater than the Soviet population. Stalin wanted to emphasize that the Soviet Union is China's elder brother and is "more important" than Mao Zedong, and he achieved this without effort. Stalin, during Mao Zedong's visit to Moscow in 1950, made him wait for his reception for several days.
Arms race, split on almost every major issue international relations, the ever-increasing anti-American campaign in the USSR and the corresponding anti-communist campaign in the United States radically poisoned the atmosphere of international relations, created an extremely tense and dangerous situation fraught with military conflicts.
Striving to expand the borders of the Soviet Union
At the Potsdam Conference (July 17 - August 2, 1945), Stalin managed to achieve the establishment of the Polish-German border along the Oder-Neisse and large reparations from Germany (including its western zone).
At the same time, Soviet representatives made proposals to change the regime of the Black Sea Straits (including the creation of naval bases there), the return of the Kara and Ardahan districts to the USSR, which were ceded to Turkey in 1921. The Soviet Union was interested in changing the regime of government in Syria, Lebanon, and the former Italian colonies in Africa. And in September 1945, Stalin demanded to reinforce the status of a great power with the 14 USSR protectorate over Libya, which caused great unrest in the West. The desire to establish itself in the Middle East led the USSR to the recognition of the State of Israel. "Now, not a single issue of international life should be resolved without the participation of the USSR," said Molotov. Only under severe pressure from the West, Soviet troops left Iran in 1946.
The policy of the USSR to transform the states of Eastern Europe that had been liberated from the fascist occupation into their satellites was simple. The communist parties of these countries, relying on the Soviet slogans that controlled the territory of the Eastern European states, carried out coups d'etat and took power into their own hands. The mechanism for seizing power was almost the same everywhere. Within three to four years, a bloc of communist satellite countries of Eastern and Southeastern Europe was formed. The world socialist system emerged.
Soviet troops were stationed in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe, Northeastern China, the Kuriles and Sakhalin, and Soviet garrisons were stationed in Vienna and Berlin.
" IN last years Stalin began to become a little arrogant, and in foreign policy I had to demand what Miliukov demanded - the Dardanelles! Stalin: “Come on, press! In the order of joint ownership. " I told him: "They will not give it." - "And you demand!"
We needed Libya after the war. Stalin says: "Come on, press!" ... It was difficult to argue. At one of the meetings of the meeting of foreign ministers, I announced that a national liberation movement had emerged in Libya. But it is still weak, we want to support it and build our military base there.
We had an attempt, besides this, to demand an area adjacent to Batumi, because there was once a Georgian population in this Turkish area ... ”- Molotov recalls 15.
Yes, it would be nice to return Alaska, says Molotov.
Did you have such thoughts?
There were, of course, but the time had not yet come for such tasks 16.
The Truman program ("Truman doctrine") also included measures that were supposed to force the USSR to withdraw into its borders, this part of the program was called "the doctrine of the rejection of socialism."
In the summer of 1947, Europe was finally divided into the allies of the United States and the allies of the USSR. Formation of appropriate military and economic alliances was only a matter of time.
Conclusion
In all of the above cases, the matter did not come to a military clash between the United States and the USSR, both sides were reasonable enough so that the "cold war" did not turn into a "hot" one, although at times peace between these countries hung in the balance. Famous saying IN AND. Lenin: "We want a voluntary alliance of nations, - such an alliance that would not allow any violence of one nation against another, - such an alliance that would be based on complete trust, on a clear consciousness of fraternal unity, on a completely voluntary consent" 17, - sounded ridiculous during the Cold War. The reasons for its occurrence are very compelling, to start a real bloody war, but this did not happen and, I believe that this is the main conclusion and conclusion from the topic.
“Winning the war with Germany does not yet mean ensuring the peoples of lasting peace and reliable security in the future” 18.
Notes (edit)
1. V. Dahl, Dictionary living Great Russian language, ed. 2nd, p. 560. Russian folk proverb.
2. T.2. M., 1976, p. 127.
3. S.I. Ozhegov, Dictionary of the Russian language, ed. 21st, p. 864.
4. Confrontation - opposition, confrontation. S.I. Ozhegov, Dictionary of the Russian language, ed. 21st, p. 294.
5. Monopoly (here) - a special position of someone in comparison with others. S.I. Ozhegov, Dictionary of the Russian language, ed. 21st, p. 363.
6. Expansion is the expansion of spheres of influence. A. A. Danilov, L. G. Kosulina, History of Russia. 20th century, Textbook, M. : Enlightenment, 1991, p. 275.
7. FR, 1947, vol. 3, pp. 224 - 225, 237 - 238.
8. Doctrine - teaching, scientific or philosophical theory, political system, theoretical principle. Dictionary of foreign words. - M. : Russian language, 1984, p. 173.
9. Harry S. Truman, Public Papers, 1945 - 1975. T.2. M., 1976, pp. 131-132.
10. Harry S. Truman, Public Papers, 1945 - 1975. T.2. M., 1976, pp. 134-141.
11. Freundschaft DDR - uDUSSR. Documenten und Materialen, Berlin, 1965.
12. Satellite (here) is a state formally independent, but in fact subordinate to another (stronger) one. Dictionary of foreign words. - M. : Rus.yaz., 1984, p. 443.
13. Reparation - compensation for losses caused by the war, paid to the victorious country by the state that is guilty of the war. Dictionary of foreign words. - M. : Rus.yaz., 1984, p. 675.
14. Protectorate is a form of dependence in which a weak country, formally preserving its state structure and some independence in internal affairs, in fact, is subordinated to a strong power. Dictionary of foreign words. - M. : Rus.yaz., 1984, p. 622.
15. From the memoirs of VM Molotov. A. A. Danilov, L. G. Kosulina, History of Russia. 20th century, Textbook, M. : Enlightenment, 1991, p. 274.
16. From the recording of the conversation between F. Chuev and V. Molotov. June 1981 A. A. Danilov, L. G. Kosulina, History of Russia. 20th century, Textbook, M. : Enlightenment, 1991, p. 275.
17. IN AND. Lenin. Collection of articles and essays, ed. 1st, pp. 345 - 346.
18. I. Stalin. About Great World War II USSR, ed. 5th, pp. 160-161.
