Question. How do You assess the last speech of Mr. Churchill delivered 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 collaboration.
Question. Can we assume that Mr. Churchill's speech is detrimental to the cause of peace and security?
Answer. Of course, Yes. In fact, Mr. Churchill is now in the position of arsonists of war. And Mr. Churchill is not alone — he has friends not only in England but in the United States of America. It should be noted that Mr. Churchill and his friends are a striking reminder in this regard, Hitler and his friends. Hitler began the cause of waging war by declaring racial theory, declaring that only people who speak German represent a full-fledged nation.
Mr. Churchill begins the cause of the outbreak of war, too, with racial theory, arguing that only Nations speaking English are full-fledged Nations called to decide the fate of the world. The 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. The English race theory leads Mr Churchill and his friends to the conclusion that Nations speaking the English language, as the only full-fledged should rule over the other Nations of the world.
In fact, Mr. Churchill and his friends in England and the United States present Nations not speaking the English language, a kind of ultimatum: recognize our domination voluntarily and then all will be fine, otherwise inevitable war.
But Nations shed blood for five years of brutal war for the freedom and independence of their countries, not to replace the rule of the Nazis with the rule of Churchilli. It is likely, therefore, that non-English-speaking Nations, which together constitute the vast majority of the world's population, will not accept new slavery.
The tragedy of Mr. Churchill is that he, as a hardened Tory, does not understand this simple and obvious truth.
There is no doubt that the setup of Mr. Churchill is at war, call to war with the Soviet Union. It is also clear that such a setup of Mr. Churchill's is incompatible with the existing Treaty of Alliance between England and the Soviet Union. However, Mr. Churchill in order to confuse readers, in passing declares that the term of the Soviet - English Treaty on mutual assistance and cooperation could be extended to 50 years.
But how to combine such a statement of Mr. Churchill with his installation on the war with the USSR, with his preaching of war against the USSR? It is clear that these things can not be combined. And if Mr. Churchill, who calls for war with the Soviet Union, considers it possible to extend the term of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty to 50 years, it means that he considers this Treaty as an empty piece of paper, necessary for him only to cover it and disguise his anti-Soviet installation.
Therefore, it is impossible to take seriously the false statements of Mr. Churchill's friends in England to extend the term of the Soviet-English Treaty to 50 years or more. The extension of the term of the contract does not make sense if one of the parties violates the contract and turns it into an empty piece of paper.
Question. How do you view the part of Mr. Churchill's speech where he attacks the democratic system of our neighboring European States and where he criticizes the good-neighbourly relations established between these States and the Soviet Union?
Answer. This part of Mr. Churchill's speech is a mixture of slander elements with elements of rudeness and tactless.
Mr. Churchill asserts that "Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest, Sofia — all these famous cities and the populations in their areas are in the Soviet sphere and all are subject in one form or another not only to Soviet influence but to a large extent, the increasing control of Moscow." Mr. Churchill qualifies all this as having no borders "expansionist tendencies" of the Soviet Union.
It does not take much effort to show that Mr. Churchill rudely and shamelessly slander here both Moscow and the named neighboring States of the USSR.
First, it is absurd to speak of exclusive Soviet control in Vienna and Berlin, where there are Allied Control Councils with representatives from four States and where the USSR has only 1/4 of the votes. It happens that some people can not slander, but we need to know the measure.
Secondly, we must not forget the following facts. The Germans made the invasion of the USSR through Finland, Poland, Romania, Hungary. The Germans could invade through these countries because in these countries there were then governments hostile to the Soviet Union.
As a result of the German invasion, the Soviet Union irretrievably lost about seven million people to German hard labor in the battles with the Germans, as well as the German occupation and hijacking of the Soviet people. In other words, the Soviet Union lost several times more people than England and the United States of America combined. Perhaps in some places they tend to forget these colossal victims of the Soviet people, who provided the liberation of Europe from Hitler's 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 protect itself for the future, is trying to ensure that in these countries there are governments loyal to the Soviet Union? How is it possible, without going crazy, to qualify these peaceful aspirations of the Soviet Union as expansionist tendencies of our state?
Mr. Churchill argues that"the Polish government, which is under the domination of the Russians, was encouraged to huge and unfair encroachments on Germany."
Here is that word is rude and offensive slander. Modern democratic Poland is led by outstanding people. They proved in practice that they are able to defend the interests and dignity of the Motherland in a way that their predecessors were not able to do. What is the basis for Mr. Churchill's claim that the leaders of modern Poland can allow "domination" of representatives of any foreign States in his country? Is it not because of the slander here Mr. Churchill on the "Russian" that has the intention to sow the seeds of discord in relations between Poland and the Soviet Union?..
Mr. Churchill is displeased with what Poland did a u-turn in its policy towards friendship and Alliance with the Soviet Union. There was a time when the relations between Poland and the USSR were dominated by elements of conflicts and contradictions. This circumstance made it possible for statesmen like Mr. Churchill to play on these contradictions, to pick up Poland under the guise of protection from Russians, to intimidate Russia by the specter of war between her and Poland and to maintain for themselves the position of arbitrator.
But this time is a thing of the past, because the enmity between Poland and Russia has given way to friendship between them, and Poland, a modern democratic Poland, no longer wants to be a ball in the hands of foreigners. It seems to me that this circumstance leads Mr. Churchill in irritation and pushes him to rude, tactless antics against Poland. It's no joke to say he's not allowed to play at someone else's expense...
As for the attacks of Mr. Churchill on the Soviet Union in connection with the expansion of Western borders
Poland due to the last captured by the Germans in Polish territories, there is, I think, it explicitly distorts the map. It is known that the decision on the Western borders of Poland was made at the Berlin conference of three powers on the basis of requirements of Poland. The Soviet Union has repeatedly stated that it considers the demands of Poland correct and fair.
It is likely that Mr. Churchill is dissatisfied with this decision. But why Mr. Churchill, sparing no arrows against the position of the Russian in this issue, hides from his readers the fact that the decision was taken at the Berlin conference unanimously, that the decision voted not only Russian, but also the British and Americans? What was the need for Mr Churchill to lead people astray?
Mr. Churchill goes on to argue that "Communist parties, which have been very insignificant in all of these Eastern European States, have reached an exceptional force far superior to their numbers, and seek everywhere to establish totalitarian control, police governments, prevail in almost all of these countries and to date, with the exception of Czechoslovakia, they do not have any genuine democracy."
It is known that in England one party, labour party operates now the state, and oppositional parties are deprived of the right to participate in the government of England. This is called from Mr. Churchill a true democracy.
In Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Hungary manages a block of several parties — from four to six parties, and the opposition, if it is more or less loyal, ensured the right to participate in the government.
This is called from Mr. Churchill totalitarianism, tyranny, police rule. Why, on what basis — do not expect an answer from Mr. Churchill. Mr. Churchill does not understand in what a ridiculous position he puts himself by his vociferous speeches about totalitarianism, tyranny, police rule.
Mr. Churchill would like Poland was ruled by Sosnowski and Anders, Yugoslavia — M. and Pavelic, Romania — Prince Stirbei and Radescu, Hungary and Austria by some king of the house of Habsburg, etc. Mr. Churchill wants to assure us that these gentlemen from the fascist gate may provide a "genuine democracy". This is the "democracy" of Mr. Churchill.
Mr. Churchill wanders about the truth when he talks about the growing influence of Communist parties in Eastern Europe. However, it should be noted that it is not quite accurate. The influence of Communist parties has grown not only in Eastern Europe, but in almost all European countries where fascism used to dominate (Italy, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Finland) or where German, Italian or Hungarian occupation took place (France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece, the Soviet Union, etc.).
The rise of Communist influence cannot be considered an accident. It is quite natural phenomenon. The influence of the Communists grew because during the hard years of the domination of fascism in Europe, the Communists proved reliable, courageous, self-sacrificing fighters against the fascist regime, for the freedom of peoples.
Mr. Churchill sometimes recalls in his speeches about "ordinary people from small houses", Barsky patting them on the shoulder and pretending to be their friend. But these people are not as simple as it may seem at first glance. They, "ordinary people", have their own views, their own policies, and they know how to stand up for themselves. They are the millions of these "common people" who have banned Mr. Churchill and his party in England, giving their votes to labour.
It is they, millions of these "ordinary people", isolated in Europe reactioners, supporters of cooperation with fascism and gave preference to the left democratic parties. It is they, millions of these "ordinary people", having experienced the Communists in the fire of struggle and resistance to fascism, decided that the Communists deserve completely the confidence of the people. Thus increased the influence of Communists in Europe. This is the law of historical development. Of course, Mr. Churchill does not like this development, and he has sounded the alarm, appealing to force. But he also didn't like the appearance of the Soviet regime in Russia after the First world war. He also beat then the alarm and organized a military campaign "14 States" against Russia, making it my goal to turn back the wheel of history. But the story was stronger cursillistas intervention and the quixotic manners of Mr. Churchill led to what he then suffered a complete defeat.
I do not know whether Mr. Churchill and his friends will be able to organize a new campaign against Eastern Europe after the second world war. But if they succeed— which is unlikely, because millions of" ordinary people " stand guard over the cause of peace — it is safe to say that they will be hit just as they were hit in the past, 26 years ago.
(An interview with Stalin's Pravda newspaper on Churchill's speech in Fulton. March 14, 1946)