I am happy that I arrived in Westminster College, and that you gave me a degree. The name "Westminster" to me says something. It seems like I've heard it somewhere. It is in Westminster I got the lion's share of their education in the field of politics, dialectic, rhetoric, there is still something. In essence, we are educated in the same or similar institutions.
Also, honor, perhaps almost unique, for a private entity — to be represented by an academic audience the President of the United States. Burdened with a variety of different tasks and responsibilities, which he craves, but that are not running, the president has traveled 1,000 miles to honor his presence our meeting today and emphasize its importance by giving me the opportunity to address this sister country, my countrymen on the other side of the ocean, and perhaps also to some other countries.
The president has already told you about his desire, which I am sure is the same as yours — that I was free to fully give you my honest and true advice in these troubled and uncertain times.
Of course, I take this to have this freedom, and feel the more right to do this, that, whatever that may be personal ambition that I could have in my younger years, has long satisfied beyond my biggest dreams. I must, however, say with certainty that I have no formal assignment, no status for this kind of speech, and I speak only for myself. So before you just what you see.
So I can afford, using the lived experience of my life, to reflect on the problems besetting us immediately after our final victory on the battlefield, and try our best to provide the preservation of what has been produced with such sacrifices and sufferings for the sake of future glory and human security.
The United States is currently at the top of world power. Today is a solemn moment for the American democracy, because, along with his superior strength it has incurred and an incredible responsibility to the future. Looking around, you should feel not only a sense of duty, but also worry about what can not be at the level of what is expected of you. The opportunities available, and they are fully clear to both of our countries. Reject it, ignore or squander uselessly would mean incurring the reproaches time to come.
The constancy of thinking, persistence in achieving goals and making great simplicity should guide and determine the behavior of the English-speaking countries in times of peace, as it was during the war. We must, I think, will be able to rise to the occasion of this strict requirement.
When the U.S. military is facing a serious situation, they usually precede their directive the words "common strategic concept." This has its own wisdom, because the existence of such a concept leads to clarity of thought. The overall strategic concept, which we must adhere to today, is nothing else than the safety and well-being, freedom and progress of all family homesteads, of all people in all countries. I mean, first of all, millions of homes and apartment buildings, the inhabitants of which, in spite of the vicissitudes and hardships of life, seek to protect the household from privation and raise his family in fear of the Lord, or based on ethical principles, which often play an important role. To ensure the safety of these countless homes, they must be protected from two major disasters — wars and tyranny. Everyone knows the terrible shock experienced by any family when her survivor who works for her and overcomes the hardships of life, the curse befalls the war. Before our eyes, gaping terrible destruction of Europe with all its erstwhile values and large parts of Asia. When the malicious intentions of the people or the aggressive ambitions of powerful states destroyed in many parts of the world the basis of a civilized society, ordinary people are faced with difficulties that they can not cope. For them, everything is distorted, broken, or even ground to pulp.
I stand here this quiet day, I shudder at the thought of what is happening in the real world with millions of people and what happens to them when the planet hunger strike. No one can calculate what is called the "incalculable amount of human suffering." Our main task and duty — to protect the family of ordinary people from the horrors and miseries of another war. In this we all agree.
Our American military colleagues, after they identified "strategic concept" and weighed all the available resources, always proceed to the next stage — the search for the means of its implementation. In this matter also has a common agreement. Already established global organization with a fundamental goal of preventing war. The UN, the successor to the League of Nations, with the decisive addition to her U.S. and all that it means, has already started its work. We must ensure the success of this activity, so that it was real and not fictitious, that this organization represents a force capable of acting, and not just shake the air, and that it has become a true temple of peace in which you can hang the shields of many countries fighting rather than simply chopping World Tower of Babel. Before we can get rid of the need of national armaments for self-preservation, we must be sure that our church is not built on quicksand or quagmire, and on the basis of solid rocky. Anybody with eyes open, know that our path will be long and difficult, but if we are determined to follow that course, which was followed during the two world wars (and, unfortunately, did not follow in the gap between them), then I there is no doubt that, in the end, we can achieve our common goal.
Here I have a practical proposal and to take action. The courts can not function without sheriffs and constables. The United Nations should immediately begin to equip the international military forces. In this case, we can only move slowly, but should begin now. I suggest that all States were asked to provide the World Organization of a number of air squadrons. These squadrons would be produced in their own countries, but were moved to a rotation from one country to another. The pilots would be wearing uniforms of their countries, but the differences with the other characters. From them it would be impossible to require participation in military operations against their own country, but in all other respects they would oversee the organization of the World. Begin to create such a force could be at a modest level and build their confidence as they grow. I wanted it to be done after the First World War, and truly believe that you can do it now.
But it would be wrong and imprudent to trust sensitive information and experience of the atomic bomb, which is now a United States, Britain and Canada, the World Organization, still in a state of infancy. It would be criminal madness to put the weapon down the river in a still agitated and globalized world. No man, no country did not sleep worse by the fact that the information, tools, and raw materials to build the bomb is now concentrated in the hands of the U.S.. I do not think we would have slept so quietly now, if the situation were reversed, and some neo-fascist or communist state monopolized for a while this terrible means. One fear of it would've been enough to totalitarian systems in order to impose itself on the free democratic world. Dire consequences of this are not amenable to human imagination. The Lord has commanded that this did not happen, and we still have time to put our house in order before such a threat arises. But even if we will not spare any effort, we still have to have enough striking superiority to have effective means of frightening to its use or the threat of such use by other countries. Eventually, when the true brotherhood of man would get a real embodiment in the form of some of the World Organization, which would have all the necessary practical means to make it effective, these powers would be transferred to it.
I now come to the second danger that lies in wait for the family hearth and ordinary people — namely, tyranny. We can not close our eyes to the fact that the freedoms enjoyed by citizens throughout the British Empire, do not operate in a large number of countries, some of them very powerful. In these states, the power of ordinary people is imposed pervasive police governments. State power is not limited to dictators or tightly knit oligarchy that dominated by a privileged party and a political police. Currently, when difficulties are still so many in our duties may not include violent interference in the internal affairs of the countries with which we are not at war. We must tirelessly and fearlessly proclaim the great principles of freedom and human rights, which are the joint inheritance English-speaking world, and that the development of the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus Act, the jury, and English common law found its most famous expression in the Declaration of Independence. They mean that the people of any country has the right and should be able to through constitutional action, by free genuine elections with secret ballot, to choose or change the character or form of government under which he lives, that should dominate the freedom of speech and press, the courts, independent the executive branch and is not subject to the influence of any party should enforce the laws that have been approved by a large majority of the population, or sanctified by time or custom. This is a fundamental right to liberty, who need to know in every home. That is the message of the British and American peoples to all mankind. Let us preach what we do and do what we preach.
So, I have identified two main threats to the family homes of the people. I'm not talking about poverty and deprivation that often disturb people the most. But if you eliminate the danger of war and tyranny, then, of course, science and cooperation in the next few years will bring a maximum of a few decades the world has passed harsh school of war, increased wealth, unprecedented in the history of mankind. Now, at this sad and otsepenyayuschy moment, we suppress hunger and sadness that followed our titanic struggle. But it all goes, and can be quickly and there is no reason except human folly and inhuman crimes that would not have given to all countries, without exception, use the onset age of abundance. I often quote the words that fifty years ago, heard from a great Irish-American orator and my friend Burke Cochran: "All just enough. Earth — a generous mother. She will give a full abundance of food for all her children if they will cultivate it in justice and peace. "
So, so far we are in complete agreement. Now, continuing to use the technique of our overall strategic concept, I come to the main one, I wanted to say here. Neither the effective prevention of war, nor the continuous expansion of the influence of the World Organization can not 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 say specifically. Fraternal Union requires not only the growing friendship and mutual understanding between our kindred systems of society, but also to continue the close relationship between our military, which should lead to a joint study of the potential hazards, compatibility of weapons and military manuals, as well as the exchange of officers and cadets of the military-technical colleges. This would also mean the continued use of existing resources to ensure mutual security by the joint use of all naval and air bases. It may double the mobility of the U.S. Navy and Air Force. It would have greatly increased the mobility of the armed forces of the British Empire, and, as the world calms down, would give a significant financial savings. Already we use together a number of islands, in the near future, and the other islands can move in sharing. USA already have a permanent defense agreement with the Dominion of Canada, which is deeply devoted to the British Commonwealth and Empire. This agreement is more effective than many of those that are often concluded in the framework of formal alliances. This principle should be extended to all the countries of the British Commonwealth with full reciprocity. This is the only way we can, no matter what happens, stay safe and to work together for the high and simple goals that are dear to us and are not harmful to anyone. At the last stage can be realized (and, I believe, ultimately realized) and the idea of common citizenship, but the question we may well be left to destiny, whose outstretched arm towards us so many of us already see clearly.
There is, however, one important question that we must ask ourselves. Will there be a special relationship between the United States and the British Commonwealth are compatible with the fundamental loyalty to the World Organization? My answer is that relationship, in contrast, are probably the only means by which the organization will be able to find the status and power. Already there is a special relationship between the United States and Canada, and South American republics. We also have concluded a 20-year agreement on cooperation and mutual assistance with Russia. I agree with the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Bevin, that the contract, to the extent that it depends on us, it may be concluded for 50 years. Our only aim is to mutual assistance and cooperation. Our alliance with Portugal in force since 1384 and yielded fruitful results at critical moments in the last war. None of these agreements is not in contradiction with the general interests of the worldwide agreement. On the contrary, they can help the work of the World Organization. "In the house of the Lord all run out of space." The special relationship between the United Nations that are not aggressive against a country and do not carry the plans that are inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations not only not harmful, but they are useful and, I believe, are necessary.
I already mentioned the Temple of Peace. To build this temple workers have from all countries. If two of these builders are particularly well aware of each other and are old friends, if their families are mixed and, citing buzzwords that caught my eye the day before yesterday, "if they have faith in each other's purpose, hope in the future to each other and indulgence to the shortcomings of each other, "then why can not they work together for a common purpose as friends and partners? Why can not they share the tools and thus improve the ability to work with each other? They not only can, but must do so, otherwise the temple will not be built after the building collapses or incompetent students, and we will again, for the third time in school war that will be far more violent than the one from which we just came out.
Could return to Middle Ages, and the glittering wings of science can return the stone age, and that now may be shed on humanity immense material wealth can lead to its total destruction. I therefore call upon: be vigilant. It may be that there is little time left. Let's not let the events go by gravity, until it is too late. If we want was a fraternal union, to which I have just mentioned, with all that extra power and security which both our countries can derive from it, let's make sure it's a great thing has become known everywhere, and played a role in strengthening the foundations of peace. It is better to prevent disease than to treat it.
On the picture of the world, so recently lit up the Allied victory, the shadow of. Nobody knows what Soviet Russia and its Communist international organization intends to do in the near future, and what are the limits, if any, and their expansionist tendencies veroobratitelnym. I deeply admire and honor the valiant Russian people and my fellow wartime Marshal Stalin. In England, — I have no doubt that here too — nourish deep sympathy and good will to all the peoples of Russia and determination to overcome the odds and numerous breakdowns in the name of establishing lasting friendships. We understand that Russia must ensure the security of its western borders of the possible renewal of German aggression. We are glad to see it in its rightful place among the leading world powers. We welcome her flag upon the seas. Above all, we welcome constant, frequent and strengthening ties between the Russian and the two peoples on both sides of the Atlantic. However, I feel it is my duty to present to you some of the facts — I am sure that you want me to explain to you the facts as they are presented to me — about the current situation in Europe.
From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic on the continent iron curtain has descended. On the other side of the curtain all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe — Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest, Sofia. All these famous cities and the populations around them were within what I call the Soviet sphere, all of them in one form or another subject not only to Soviet influence but also a significant and growing control of Moscow. Athens only to their immortal fame can freely determine their own future in the elections with the participation of British, American and French observers. The Polish Government has been under Russian domination, promoted to a huge and unfair attacks on Germany, which leads to mass expulsions of millions of Germans in the unfortunate and unprecedented scale. The Communist parties, which were very few in number in all of these countries in Eastern Europe, have been raised to power by far larger than their numbers, and everywhere seek to establish totalitarian control. Almost all of these countries are ruled by governments of police, and to this day, with the exception of Czechoslovakia, there is no true democracy. Turkey and Persia are deeply concerned and worried about the claims being made on them, and the pressures to which they are subjected by the Moscow government. In Berlin, Russian kvazikommunisticheskuyu attempting to create a party in their zone of occupied Germany by providing special privileges to groups of left-wing German leaders.
After fighting last June, the American and British armies in accordance with previously agreed moved to the West at the front of almost 400 miles to a depth that reaches in some cases 150 miles, so that our Russian allies occupied the vast territory they conquered Western democracies.
If now the Soviet Government tries to create separate actions within its area of pro-communist Germany, it will cause new and serious difficulties in the British and American zones, and will give the defeated Germans the opportunity to arrange a bargaining between the Soviets and the Western democracies. What would make any conclusions from these facts — and all the facts — this is clearly not the liberation of Europe, for which we fought. And it is not Europe, with the necessary prerequisites for the establishment of a lasting peace.
Security of the world requires a new unity in Europe, from which no one side should not push away forever. From the quarrels of these strong indigenous races took place in Europe world wars we have witnessed, or which broke out in the old days. Twice during our lifetime that the United States against their wishes and traditions and at odds with arguments that it is impossible not to understand drawn insurmountable forces in these wars in order to ensure the victory of the right things, but only after a terrible slaughter and devastation. Twice the United States was forced to send to the war millions of its young men of the Atlantic. But at the present time, the war could suffer any country, wherever it is found between sunset and sunrise. We definitely need to act with the conscious aim of the great pacification of Europe in the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter. This is, in my view, the policy of exceptional importance.
On the other side of the "iron curtain" that has descended across Europe, other reasons for concern. In Italy, the activities of the Communist Party is seriously constrained by the need to support the claims of trained Marshal Tito's communists to former Italian territory in the center of the Adriatic. Nevertheless, the situation in Italy remains uncertain. Again, it is impossible to rebuild Europe without a strong France. All my life I've played for the existence of a strong France and never, even in the darkest times, never lost faith in its future. And now I do not lose that faith. However, in many countries around the world away from the borders of Russia established Communist fifth columns, 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 constitute a growing challenge and all the danger to Christian civilization. All these painful facts which have to speak immediately after the victory gained so great partnership in arms in the name of peace and democracy. But it would be extremely unwise not to see them, yet there is time. Another concern is the prospect of the Far East, especially in Manchuria. The agreement reached at Yalta, to which I was involved, it was extremely favorable for Russia. But it has been concluded at the time when no one could say that the war will end in the summer or fall of 1945, and it was expected that the war with Japan will go within 18 months after the end of the war with Germany. In your country, you are so well informed about the Far East, and are the true friends of China, that I need not enlarge on the situation there.
I felt obliged to describe to you the shadow of that in the West and in the East falls to the whole world. During his imprisonment, the Treaty of Versailles I was a minister and a close friend of Mr. Lloyd George, who led the British delegation at Versailles. I did not agree with much of what has been done there, but I have deposited a very vivid impression of the situation at that time, and it pains me to compare it with the current. It was a time of great expectations and boundless confidence that the war will be no more and that the League of Nations would be omnipotent. Today, I do not see or feel such confidence and such hopes in our tormented world.
On the other hand, I drive myself from the idea that a new war is inevitable, especially in the very near future. And it is because I am sure that our destiny is in our hands and we have the power to save the future, I feel it is my duty to speak on the matter, the benefit I have a chance and opportunity to do so. I do not believe that Russia wants war. What she wants to do is the fruit of war and the unlimited distribution of their power and doctrines. But what should we think about here today, there is still time, it's about preventing wars forever and creating the conditions for freedom and democracy as soon as possible in all countries. Our difficulties and dangers will not go away if we close our eyes to them or just going to wait for that to happen, or will pursue a policy of appeasement. We need to reach a settlement, and the longer it takes, the more difficult it will go and the more menacing danger will be in front of us. From what I have observed in the behavior of our Russian friends and allies during the war, I carried the belief that they do not respect nothing like force and nowhere feed less respect than for military weakness. For this reason the old doctrine of a balance of power is now unusable. We can not afford to — as far as we can — to act from a small advantage, which leads into the temptation to do a test of strength. If the Western democracies will stand together in their firm commitment to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and their impact on the development of these principles will be a huge and hardly anyone else will be able to shake them. If, however, they will be released or will not be able to do their duty and if they miss these crucial years, then indeed we suffer a disaster.
The last time watching this development, I cried out in a loud voice to his countrymen and to the world, but no one wanted to listen. Until 1933 or even 1935 Germany could be saved from the terrible fate that befell her, and we would be spared the misery of those that Hitler unleashed on humanity. Never in history has there been a war, which would be easier to prevent timely action than the one which has just devastated huge areas of the globe. She, I believe, could have been prevented without a shot being fired, and today Germany would be powerful, prosperous and respected country, but then I did not want to listen to, and one by one we were involved in a terrible tornado. We must not let that happen again.
Now this can be achieved only through the achievement today, in 1946, a good understanding with Russia on all issues under the general auspices of the United Nations, keeping with this universal tool is a good understanding for many years, relying on the power of the English-speaking world and all those who is associated with it. Let no one underestimate the impressive power of the British Empire and Commonwealth. Suppose that you see on our island of 46 million people who have difficulties with food, and suppose we have a difficulty with the recovery of our industry and export trade after six years of selfless war effort, do not think that we can not go through this dark strip of hardship so Just as we passed through the glorious years of agony, or that half a century later we will not have 70 or 80 million living throughout the world and united in protecting our traditions, our way of life and those universal values that we all profess. If the population of the British Commonwealth and the United States will work together with all that such cooperation is in the air, at sea, in science and economics, it will be excluded that a turbulent, unstable balance of power that would be tempted by ambition or opportunism. On the contrary, is a perfect sense of security. If we faithfully abide by the Charter of the United Nations and to move forward with a calm and sober by force, claiming someone else's land and wealth, and not seeking to establish voluntary control over the thoughts of people if all the moral and material forces of Britain united with yours in fraternal union, the open wide the way to the future — not only for us but for everyone, not just for today, but for a century to come.
Question. What do you think of Mr. Churchill's last speech uttered by them in the United States of America?
Reply. I regard it as a dangerous act, calculated to sow the seeds of discord between the Allied nations and hinder their cooperation.
Question. Can I assume that Mr. Churchill's speech is detrimental to peace and security?
Reply. Of course, yes. In fact, Mr. Churchill now stands on the position of the warmongers. And Mr. Churchill is not alone — he has friends not only in Britain but in the United States.
It should be noted that Mr. Churchill and his friends a striking resemblance in this respect, Hitler and his friends. Hitler began to deal with the outbreak of war that declared racial theory, declaring that the only people who speak the German language, are full-fledged nation. Mr. Churchill begins to deal with the outbreak of war, too, racial theory, arguing that only nations speaking the English language, are full-fledged nations, called to decide the fate of the entire world. German racial theory brought Hitler and his friends to the conclusion that the Germans as the only full-fledged nation should rule over other nations. English racial theory brings Mr. Churchill and his friends to the conclusion that the nation, speaking in English, as the only full-fledged must prevail over the other nations of the world.
In fact, Mr. Churchill and his friends in England and the United States impose nations who do not speak English, a kind of ultimatum: admit our rule voluntarily, and then everything will be fine — otherwise, war is inevitable.
But the nation's shed blood for five years of brutal war for the freedom and independence of their country, and not in order to replace Hitler's rise to dominance of the Churchills. It is likely, therefore, that the nation who do not speak English, and at the same time make up the vast majority of the world's population, will not agree to go to the new slavery.
The tragedy of Mr. Churchill is that he, as an inveterate Tories do not understand this simple and obvious truth.
There is no doubt that the installation of Mr. Churchill's installation to the war, calling for war with the Soviet Union. It is also clear that such a facility Mr. Churchill is not compatible with the existing treaty of alliance between Britain and the Soviet Union. However, Mr. Churchill to confuse readers, says in passing that the term of the Anglo-Soviet treaty on mutual assistance and cooperation could well be extended to 50 years. But how can we reconcile this statement of Mr. Churchill and his unit to war with the Soviet Union, with its preaching of the war against the Soviet Union? It is clear that these things can not be combined. And if Mr. Churchill, calling for war with the Soviet Union, nevertheless considers possible extension of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty of up to 50 years, it means that he considers this agreement as a blank piece of paper, it is only necessary to cover it and disguise their anti-Soviet installation. Therefore can not be taken seriously by the false statements of Mr. Churchill's friends in England on the extension of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty of up to 50 years or more. Extension of the contract does not make sense if one party breaches the contract and turns it into a blank piece of paper.
Question. How do you assess that part of the speech of Mr. Churchill, where he attacks the democratic system of our neighboring European countries, and where he criticizes neighborly relations established between these States and the Soviet Union?
Reply. This part of the speech of Mr. Churchill is a mixture of elements with the elements of defamation rudeness and lack of tact.
Mr. Churchill said that "Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest, Sofia — all these famous cities and the populations around them are in the Soviet sphere and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but greatly increasing control from Moscow. " Mr. Churchill qualifies all of this as having no borders "expansionist tendencies" of the Soviet Union.
Does not require much effort to show that Mr Churchill grossly and shamelessly slandered here as in Moscow and named for the neighboring Soviet state.
First, it is absurd to speak of the exclusive control of the Soviet Union in Vienna and Berlin, where there are the Allied Control Council of representatives from the four countries where the Soviet Union and has only 1/4 of the votes. It happens that some people can not slander, but we should still know when to stop.
Second, we must not forget the following circumstances. The Germans made the invasion of the USSR through Finland, Poland, Romania, Hungary. The Germans were able to produce an invasion through these countries because these countries have existed if the government hostile to the Soviet Union. As a result of the German invasion of the Soviet Union irrevocably lost in battles with the Germans, and through the German occupation of the Soviet people and the hijacking of a German forced labor around seven million people. In other words, the Soviet Union lost people is several times larger than Britain and the United States combined. It is possible that some places are inclined to forget these enormous sacrifices of the Soviet people, ensured the liberation of Europe from Hitler's yoke. But the Soviet Union can not forget about them. The question is, what can be surprising in the fact that the Soviet Union, wishing to protect themselves for the future, trying to ensure that existed in these countries governments loyal to the Soviet Union? How can you, without going mad, qualify these peaceful aspirations of the Soviet Union as expansionist tendencies of our state?
Mr. Churchill said that "the Polish Government has been under Russian domination, encouraged by a huge and unfair attacks on Germany."
Here, that word is a crude and offensive slander. Modern democratic Poland run by outstanding people. They proved in practice that are able to protect the interests and dignity of the country so as not able to do their predecessors. What is there in Mr. Churchill's reason to believe that the leaders of today's Poland may admit in their own country "domination" of representatives of any foreign states was? Is it because there slandering Mr. Churchill to "Russian", which has the intention to sow the seeds of discord in relations between Poland and the Soviet Union? ..
Mr. Churchill was unhappy that Poland made a turn in its policy towards friendship and alliance with the Soviet Union. There was a time when the relationship between Poland and the Soviet Union dominated by the elements of conflict and controversy. This fact made it possible for public figures like Mr. Churchill's play on these contradictions, to pick up arms to Poland under the guise of anti-Russian, Russian intimidate the specter of war between her and Poland, and save for himself the position of arbitrator. But that time is gone, because the enmity between Poland and Russia gave way to a friendship between them, and Poland, the modern democratic Poland, no longer willing to be playing ball in the hands of foreigners. It seems to me that this circumstance leads to irritation of Mr. Churchill and pushes it to the rude, tactless antics against Poland. It's no joke to say he's not allowed to play for others …
As for Mr. Churchill's attacks on the Soviet Union in connection with the expansion of the western borders of Poland by the Germans captured in the past Polish territories, there is, I think, he explicitly cringe card. As is known, the decision on the western borders of Poland was taken at the Berlin conference of the three powers on the basis of the requirements of Poland. The Soviet Union has repeatedly stated that he believes the requirements of Polish correct and fair. It is likely that Mr. Churchill unhappy with this decision. But why Mr. Churchill, sparing no arrows against the Russian position on this issue, hides from his readers the fact that the decision was made at the Berlin Conference unanimously voted for the decision that not only Russian, but also the British and the Americans? What was the need for Mr. Churchill to mislead people?
Mr. Churchill says further that "the Communist Party, which had been very low in all these Eastern European countries have achieved extraordinary power, far exceeding their numbers, and tend everywhere to obtain totalitarian control, police government prevails in almost all these countries, and to date except Czechoslovakia, there are no genuine democratic ".
As you know, in England now controls the government by one party, the Labour Party, and the opposition parties are denied the right to participate in the government of England. This is called from Mr. Churchill's genuine democracy. In Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Hungary, operates the block several parties — from four to six parties, and the opposition, if it is more or less loyal, secured the right to participate in government. This is called from Mr. Churchill's totalitarianism, tyranny, police state. Why, on what grounds — do not wait for an answer from Mr. Churchill. Mr. Churchill did not understand the ridiculous position he puts himself by his strident speeches about totalitarianism, tyranny, police state.
Mr. Churchill would like to Poland ruled Sosnkowski and Anders, Yugoslavia — M. and Pavelic, Romania — Prince Stirbey and Radescu, Hungary and Austria — some king of the house of Habsburg, etc. Mr. Churchill would have us believe that these gentlemen of fascist gateway can provide a "true democracy". This is the "democracy" of Mr. Churchill.
Mr. Churchill wanders around the truth when he talks about the growing influence of communist parties in Eastern Europe. It should be noted, however, that it is not quite accurate. The influence of the communist parties has grown not only in Eastern Europe, but in almost all European countries, which previously was dominated by fascism (Italy, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Finland) or where there was a German, Italian or Hungarian occupation (France, Belgium, Holland, Norway , Denmark, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece, the Soviet Union, etc.).
The growing influence of the Communists can not be considered an accident. It is quite a natural phenomenon. Communist influence has grown because of the difficult years of the reign of fascism in Europe, the Communists proved to be reliable, courageous, self-sacrificing fighters against the fascist regime, for the freedom of peoples. Mr. Churchill sometimes recalls in his speeches about the "common people of the small houses," a lord patting them on the shoulder and pretending to be their friend. But these people are not so simple as it might seem at first glance. They, the "ordinary people" have their own views, their own policies, and they are able to fend for themselves. It is they, millions of these "ordinary people" blackballed in England Mr. Churchill and his party, giving their votes to Labour. It is they, millions of these "ordinary people" isolated in Europe reactionaries, supporters of collaboration with fascism and expressed a preference for left-democratic parties. It is they, millions of these "ordinary people", having experienced the Communists in the heat of struggle and resistance to fascism, decided that the Communists completely trustworthy people. Since increased influence of the Communists in Europe. That is the law of historical development.
Of course, Mr. Churchill does not like this development, and he sounded the alarm, appealing to force. But he did not like the appearance of the Soviet regime in Russia after World War II. He also hit the alarm and then organized a military campaign, "14 states" against Russia, putting himself to turn back the wheel of history. But the story was stronger Churchill intervention and quixotic habits of Mr. Churchill led to the fact that he suffered a complete defeat then. I do not know whether Mr. succeed Churchill and his friends organize after the Second World War, a new campaign against the "Eastern Europe." But if they succeed — which is unlikely, for the millions of "ordinary people" stand on guard for peace — then we can say with confidence that they will be the bits in the same way as they were beaten in the past, 26 years ago.
See also: Anglo-American policy in the liberated territories