W. Churchill's speech about the “Iron Curtain”, held in Fulton on March 5, 1946, can certainly be viewed from different perspectives. However, in my opinion, it was primarily provocative in nature. In a well-written text, Churchill, who believed that one could only speak with Russia in the language of force, proposed creating an anti-Soviet springboard that would give a start to the establishment of Anglo-American world domination. He called this bridgehead, elegantly, as a kind of “fraternal association of peoples speaking English language". This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth of Nations, on the one hand, and the United States, on the other. Speaking about Soviet expansion and the dangers of communism, Churchill was primarily afraid of Moscow’s growing influence over the Eastern and Central Europe. At that time, the USSR, which had established its authority after the victory in World War II, could compete with the United States, spreading its ideological and economic influence. Churchill could not allow such a situation. Ultimately there would only be one superpower left. As he put it in this speech: “Only nations that speak English are full-fledged nations, called upon to decide the destinies of the whole world.”

With this speech he marked the split between the USA and the USSR. Thus, for the whole world, that March week became the beginning of the Cold War, the main reason for which was not the contradiction between ideologies, but the question of who would dominate the political and economic sphere.

The subject of this speech is the veiled “Democracy as a guarantor of peace and security.” W. Churchill calls on people to turn to democracy, to live on the basis of the principles of freedom and human rights, avoiding blind submission to state power. In his opinion, "...tyranny is one of the most terrible threats that interferes with the establishment of peace and the normalization of life, it suppresses people and deprives them of independence. Only states without tyranny can build a new world order without wars and deprivations." In this vein, the USSR is the main threat and the opposite.

The topic of the speech is several “commonplaces”. Of which I can highlight:

Oil factor

Iron curtain

Anglo-Saxon Nazism

The main thesis in this speech is the idea of ​​compliance with the Charter of the United Nations, and the inevitability of war if non-English speaking countries refuse to comply with this charter. He also talks about the importance of uniting the British Empire with the United States. Throughout the speech, the speaker argues for the importance of making the right choice, citing various arguments and appealing facts.

This speech is structured in such a way that when the problem is revealed, W. Churchill immediately removes it, offering the correct, in his opinion, solutions. The thesis is formulated in simple terms and without complex stylistic structures, thus becoming accessible to everyone.

One of the main goals pursued by the Fulton speech was to convince the people that the USSR was a dangerous aggressor with ambitions to conquer the world. Throughout his speech, W. Churchill relies on a system of arguments, which makes this goal acceptable. Logical proofs are based on generalization of particular cases, induction. They do not have high evidentiary power, but are simple enough and true to the listening audience - “Let us preach what we do and practice what we preach.” In his speech, he also uses words such as: “iron curtain” and its “shadow falling on the continent”, “fifth columns” and “police states”, “complete obedience” and “unconditional expansion of power”, which in what - this degree correlates the USSR with Nazi Germany.

Persuasion Strategy:

• 1. Replacing a word or concept that has, or as a result of some circumstances, a negative assessment. Thus, W. Churchill in the above speech, not wanting to offend some overly warlike European nations, calls them “Teutons.” Although at the same time he most sharply characterizes them as a threat to the world: “... it was from Europe that came the terrifying ridge of terrible nationalist disagreements, historically emanating from the Teutonic states, which we have already experienced in this 20th century, and which threatened to destroy the world and destroy the prospect of development of all humanity..."
• 2. Interpretation of facts, for their perception and assessment from the perspective of the new (post-war) situation in Europe. W. Churchill emphasizes that the power that Hitler imposed is incomparable with the ideals of freedom and democracy that came with the liberators represented by Great Britain and the United States. This became possible only thanks to the unification of European states in the fight against evil.
• 3. Attribution: the “necessary” cause-and-effect relationship is imposed on the audience. “The inevitable unification has already taken place in the Western Hemisphere. We, the British, are also united by our Community of States, the creation of which does not contradict the need for the establishment of a world organization, which will be the bulwark of the world.”
• 4. Overgeneralization - the properties of individuals and events are taken to be the properties of all members of a geographic community or all neighboring countries. Thus, he emphasizes the absurdity of the decision of many politicians to remain aloof from what was happening in Europe at that time. “The Great Country, located on the opposite shore of the Atlantic Ocean, finally realized that the enslavement of Europe would inevitably lead to the enslavement of its own country and therefore extended a helping hand, otherwise the Times of Troubles, cruelty and humiliation would return.”
• 5. Ayugism of a message is a technique that, as a rule, orients the audience to a positive assessment of the information presented. W. Churchill calls for the creation of a European group of states, “...which would be endowed with an endless spirit of patriotism and citizenship in relation to the divided peoples of a rapidly changing and great continent.” This method is presented by a rhetorical question, as if automatically forcing the audience to accept a consonant position.

When analyzing W. Churchill’s speech, one cannot help but note, first of all, the style of language in which it is presented. This is not just the text of a dry political program with a couple of slogans and the presence of main theses. The speech is rich in precise comparisons and metaphors, it contains notes of humor and irony, creating an atmosphere of friendly, partnership, relaxed communication with “kindred” people. It is in such a bright shell that the deep political meaning of this speech is placed, which was the cause of the most formidable world confrontation of the second half of the twentieth century, in other words, which marked the beginning of the Cold War.

On March 5, 1946, Winston Churchill delivered his now famous Fulton Speech at Westminster College, which essentially marked the beginning of the Cold War between the West and the USSR.

Yesterday, the most famous confrontation between the two superpowers celebrated its seventieth anniversary, but many questions still have not received clear answers. For example, why did the Cold War begin precisely when the USSR was planning to begin active cooperation with the United States? Why did Churchill, after the end of World War II, choose the path of confrontation with Stalin, whom he had previously called “the father of his country”? Let's try to figure this out.

Let's start with the fact that at the time of his speech, Winston Churchill did not hold any government positions, contrary to various myths and misconceptions. His Conservative Party was defeated on July 5, 1945, and he was forced to go into opposition. In 1946, he arrived in the United States for treatment solely as a tourist. But his visit to Westminster Fulton College is far from an accident or coincidence. Everything was carefully planned and prepared in advance.

Since Fulton is Truman's birthplace, Churchill rightly believed that he could arrange for his speech to be given after Truman's. The Briton’s calculation was justified: since Fulton was for Truman the subject of his patriotic feelings, he was the first to appear on the stage. Churchill, who formally does not hold any official political posts, spoke second and allegedly spoke on behalf of Truman. Of course, the Fulton speech was provocative in nature, and subsequently Truman could have disowned Churchill’s calls and attributed everything to the private opinion of the ex-prime minister, but he did not. It was in this way that Churchill ensured that a lecture in a deeply provincial town, essentially in a remote place, created a universal resonance and was taken so seriously on both sides of the ocean.

The situation in the world after the end of the war was very confusing and ambiguous. Formally anti-Hitler coalition still existed, but in fact the relationship between the USSR and the West had serious contradictions. Beginning in 1942, the Soviet leadership began to develop a completely new strategy for political and economic cooperation with the United States and England. It was partly voiced at the Big Three negotiations in Tehran in 1943. The calculation was to support the war-weakened Soviet economy by obtaining loans from these states. Stalin had high hopes for cooperation with Washington. In the fall of 1945, after lengthy negotiations, an agreement was signed to provide a loan to the USSR in the amount of $244 million. The funds were supposed to go towards rebuilding the country. The US subsequently terminated this agreement.

At the end of the war, the Soviet Union had very serious authority in the international arena. Stalin actively claimed a leading role in resolving issues related to establishing a new world order. At the same time, communism found more and more new adherents in countries of both Eastern and Western Europe. Flare up in Greece Civil War between supporters of the communist system and anti-communists. At the same time, the positions of the Communist Parties were seriously strengthened in Italy, Spain, France and a number of other states. In the West, society was also loyal to the Soviet Union and counted on the continuation of friendly relations that had developed during the war.

Of course, this trend fundamentally did not suit Churchill. He understood perfectly well that in Europe the former influence of Great Britain as a regional leader had long been lost, and other countries, destroyed by the war, simply could not resist the communist ideology of the USSR. Therefore, he began to look for a way out with the help of the United States, which suffered the least from the war. When Churchill spoke at Westminster College, the intensity of passions on the international stage was at its peak. Truman seriously considered going to war with Soviet Union and talked about using nuclear weapons against the Soviets. Churchill saw the opportunity to resist Stalin only in a close alliance between England and the USA.

We will not analyze Churchill’s Fulton speech in full. Its essence can easily fit in one sentence: “Only nations that speak English are full-fledged nations, called upon to decide the destinies of the whole world.” It was with Churchill's speech that the formation of a coalition of a new world hegemon began. The main goal is to establish Western influence throughout the world. In his report, he also touched upon the creation of an anti-Soviet bloc in European open spaces and close military cooperation between England and the United States. Essentially, it launched a new confrontation of ideologies on a global scale.

In turn, Stalin’s reaction to the Fulton Theses was completely objective. He drew an analogy between Churchill and Hitler, emphasizing that they both started the war with racial theory. But that’s how it is. Hitler's regime was built on the theory that only people who spoke German, represent a full-fledged nation that is obliged to rule the world.

From my point of view, Churchill continued the war, which for many seemed over. The armed confrontation took a different form - the form of the Cold War. The West had no options. Further cooperation between the United States and the Union would only accelerate and strengthen the spread of the ideas of communism, which were not supported overseas. The confrontation gave time for the consolidation of all anti-Soviet forces. Therefore, the choice of confrontation with the USSR was without alternative and the only possible one.

Current events in global politics only confirm that the Manifesto of the Anglo-Saxon World with the declaration of war for world domination, voiced by Churchill 70 years ago, is more relevant than ever.

[From Muscles of the world, M., EKSMO, 2006.]

Preface

“The Fulton speech is rightfully considered Churchill’s most important and striking speech as leader of the opposition,3 a position he occupied from 1945 to 1951. It was the first to use expressions such as “special relationship” and “muscles of the world”, which immediately became winged and still remain in the vocabulary of politicians and journalists.But the Fulton speech became famous mainly due to the enormous impression it made both on the United States and Western Europe, and on the whole world as a whole, especially in that part where We are talking about the “Iron Curtain”, and in this sense its influence on the course of world events can hardly be overestimated.

Therefore, it is no coincidence that Russian historians traditionally consider the date of the beginning of the Cold War to be the day, month and year when this speech was made. The style and style of Fulton’s speech, its harmonious composition, the author’s brilliant ability to move from one topic to another with a gradual increase in the intensity of the narrative to a lightning-like climax at the end - all this gives reason to classify Fulton’s speech as a true masterpiece of oratory."

Robert Rhodes James

Speech text

I was delighted to visit you at Westminster College today and consider it a great honor to receive my degree from you. I have to say that the word "Westminster" somehow seems familiar to me. I feel like I've heard it somewhere before. And in fact, it was in Westminster 2 that I received my main education in the field of politics, dialectics, rhetoric, and in some other areas. In essence, Westminster, which taught me so much, and the college where you study are very similar institutions, or, in any case, quite related.

I also consider it a great honor - perhaps unprecedented for a private person - to be introduced to an academic audience by the President of the United States of America himself.

All this gives me reason, supported by the experience of my whole life, to reflect on the problems that arise before us today, after our complete victory in the recently ended war, and to try to convince you, as far as I can, that everything that has been achieved at a cost

so many sacrifices and suffering should not be lost, and in this I see the guarantee of the security and prosperity of mankind in the future.

The United States of America is today at the pinnacle of power, being the most powerful power in the world, and this can be regarded as a kind of testing moment for American democracy, because superiority in power also means a huge responsibility to the future. Looking around you, you must take care not only to fulfill your duty to all humanity, but also to ensure that you do not fall below what you have achieved high level. New, brilliant prospects and opportunities are opening up for both our countries. If we abandoned them, or neglected them, or did not use them to their fullest extent, we would bring upon ourselves the condemnation of our

descendants on for a long time. It is necessary that consistency of thought, perseverance in the pursuit of goals and majestic simplicity in decisions should determine and guide the policy of the English-speaking countries in years of peace just as in years of war. We must cope with this difficult task, and I have no doubt that we will succeed.

The American military, when faced with serious situations, usually headlines its directives with the words “overall strategic concept,” and there is great wisdom in these words, because they help to formulate the tasks facing them with utmost clarity. What is our general strategic concept that you and I need to adopt today? Nothing less than to ensure the safety and prosperity, freedom and prosperity of all men and all women in all homes and in all families throughout the whole earth. But first of all, I mean the countless number of houses, both private and apartment buildings, the inhabitants of which, earning a living by hired labor, manage, despite all the vicissitudes and difficulties of life, to protect their household members from hardships and hardships and to raise their children in the spirit of reverence for God, that is, in accordance with those high moral principles that play such an important role in human life.

For the millions and millions of people living in these houses to truly feel safe, they must be protected from two monstrous marauders - war and tyranny. We all know very well how terrible

An ordinary family experiences shocks when the curses of war fall on its breadwinner, bringing countless suffering also to those for whose well-being he works by the sweat of his brow. We look with horror at the terrible destruction suffered by Europe, which has lost much of its former greatness, and a significant part of Asia. When, as a result of the black plans of villainous minds, encouraged by the aggressive aspirations of powerful powers, the very foundations of a civilized society are destroyed across vast expanses of the earth, ordinary people they have to face such incredible difficulties that they cannot cope with. They see the world disfigured, broken into pieces, turned into a terrible mess.

Standing here before you on this calm, fine day, I shudder to think about what difficult times millions of people are now going through and what a terrible time awaits them,

if an uninvited guest comes to the earth with a stealthy gait - hunger. There is an expression "an incalculable amount of human suffering." And in fact, who can calculate what this amount is equal to? Our primary task - moreover, our highest duty - is to protect the homes of ordinary people from the horrors and shocks of another similar war, and on this, I think, everyone will agree with me. Having defined the "general strategic concept" and assessed the resources needed to implement it, our American military colleagues always move on to the next stage - choosing the way in which this concept can be implemented. Well, in this regard, the countries of the world also came to full agreement. A world organization, the UN, has already begun its work, which is the successor to the League of Nations and was created mainly to prevent a new war. The accession of the United States to the UN4, given the enormous role of your country in international affairs, gives this new organization special authority. We must constantly ensure that the work of the UN is as productive as possible and has a real, and not ostentatious, character, so that this organization is an active force, and not just a platform for idle talk, so that it becomes a genuine Temple of Peace, where someday shields with the coats of arms of a huge number of countries will be hung, and not turned into a second Tower of Babel or a place for settling scores. Before we can get rid of the need to base guarantees on our national

security on the armed forces alone, we will have to make sure that our common Temple of Peace is built not on quicksand or swampy swamps, but on a solid, rocky foundation. Anyone who is capable of thinking realistically understands that we have a long and hard way, but if we show the same consistency and perseverance in our actions as we showed during the war years - although, alas, not during the years of respite between the wars - then there is no doubt that in the end we will achieve our goal.

Where to start? I would like to make one specific and very realistic proposal on this matter. No court, administrative or criminal, can function normally without sheriffs and police officers. Likewise, the United Nations cannot function effectively unless it has an international military force at its disposal. In such a matter we need to act slowly, step by step, but we must start now. I propose that each member state of the United Nations allocate a certain number of squadrons at its disposal. These squadrons will undergo training and military training in their home countries, and then be transferred on a rotating basis from one country to another. Pilots may have a national military uniform, but the stripes on it must be international. No one can require any of these units to fight against their own country, but in all other respects

they must be completely subordinate to the UN. The formation of international armed forces should begin on a fairly modest basis, and then, as confidence in them increases, they can begin to gradually build them up. This idea, which arose in me after the First World War, was never realized, and I would really like to believe that it will nevertheless become a reality, and in the very near future.

At the same time, I must say that it would be an unforgivable mistake to entrust a world organization, still in its infancy, with secret information about production and methods of use. atomic bomb- information that is in the common property of the United States, Great Britain and Canada. It would be real madness and criminal imprudence to make this information available for general use in our far from calm and unified world. Not a single person in any country on our soil has slept worse at night because the secret of producing atomic weapons, as well as the corresponding technological base and raw materials, are concentrated today mainly in American hands. But I don’t think that we would all sleep so peacefully if the situation were exactly the opposite and a monopoly on this terrible means of mass destruction was seized - at least temporarily - by some communist or neo-fascist state. The mere fear of the atomic bomb would be enough for them to impose on the free,

the democratic world one of its totalitarian systems, and the consequences of this would be simply monstrous. However, God willed that this should not happen, and we will have enough time to put our house in order before we could face such a threat. If we make every effort, we will be able to maintain a sufficient advantage in this area and thereby prevent the danger of anyone ever using these deadly weapons. Over time, when a true brotherhood of people is established, having found its real embodiment in the establishment of an international organization that will have all the necessary means to be taken into account by the whole world, developments in the field atomic energy can be handed over to this international organization without any fear.

And now I would like to move on to the second of the two evils I have mentioned, which threaten every home, every family, every person - namely, tyranny. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that the democratic freedoms enjoyed by citizens throughout the British Empire5 are not ensured in many other states, including very powerful ones. The life of ordinary citizens in these states is under strict control and constant supervision of various kinds of police regimes that have unlimited power, which is exercised either by the dictator himself, or by a narrow group of people through a privileged party and political police. Not ours

It is a matter - especially now, when we ourselves have so many difficulties - to forcibly interfere in the internal affairs of countries with which we have not fought and which cannot be classified as defeated. But at the same time we must tirelessly and uncompromisingly proclaim the great principles of democratic rights and freedoms of man, which are the common heritage of all English-speaking peoples and which found their most vivid expression in the American Declaration of Independence, which contained the traditions of such fundamental acts as the Magna Carta6, the Bill of rights7, Habeas Corpus8, trial by jury clause and, finally, English common law.9

All this means that, firstly, the citizens of any country have the right to elect the government of their country and change the nature or form of government under which they live, through free, unimpeded elections held through secret ballot, and this right must be ensured by constitutional norms this country; secondly, freedom of speech and thought must prevail in any country and, thirdly, the courts must be independent of the executive branch and free from the influence of any parties, and the justice they administer must be based on laws approved by broad sections of the population of the given country or hallowed by the time and traditions of this country. These are the fundamental principles of democratic freedoms, which must be remembered in every home and in every

family. This is also the essence of the appeal of the English and American peoples, with which they address all of humanity. Let our word never diverge from deed, and deed from word.

I have told you the two main dangers that threaten every home and every family - war and tyranny. But I have not mentioned poverty and deprivation, which for many people are the main cause of worries and worries. If the danger of war and tyranny is eliminated, then there can be no doubt that the development of science and international cooperation will allow humanity, which has gone through such a cruel school of war, to achieve in the next few years, or at most in the next few decades, such a rapid increase in material well-being as it never knew in its entire centuries-old history. In the meantime, in our bleak and difficult times, we find ourselves in the grip of hunger and despair, which were the result of the colossal tension and enormous sacrifices that the war cost us. But this time will pass, and, I think, very quickly, and then there will be no reasons left, except perhaps human stupidity and inhuman crimes that would prevent the advent of an age of true abundance for all the peoples of the earth. I like to quote the words that I heard about half a century ago from a brilliant speaker and my good friend, an American of Irish descent, Mr. Burke Cochran: “There is enough for everyone in our land. She is our generous mother and will feed all her children enough, if only they did not forget

work and fertilize its soil and live in peace, justice and harmony." I am sure that you think so too.

Continuing to adhere to our method of “general strategic concept,” I now turn to the main thing that I would like to tell you today. It is difficult for me to imagine that the provision of effective measures to prevent a new war and develop close cooperation between peoples would be possible without the creation of what I would call a fraternal union of the English-speaking countries. By this I mean the special relationship between Great Britain and the British Commonwealth of Nations, on the one hand, and the United States of America, on the other. This is not the time for generalities, so I will try to be as specific as possible. This kind of fraternal alliance means not only the full strengthening of friendship and mutual understanding between our two peoples with such similar political and social systems, but also the continuation of close cooperation between our military advisers with a further transition to joint identification of potential military threats, the development of similar types of weapons and instructions for treatment of them, as well as mutual exchange of officers and cadets of military and military-technical educational institutions. This must be combined with measures to ensure mutual security, such as the joint use of all naval and air force bases available to each of our countries in various parts of the globe, which will double the mobility of both American and British

naval and air force and will result in significant financial savings as a result of stabilization of the global situation. There are already a number of islands in our common use, and in the near future their number will increase.

The United States already has a long-term defense treaty with the Dominion of Canada, our staunch ally in the British Commonwealth. The American-Canadian Treaty is based on more realistic principles than many of those usually concluded within the framework of purely formal alliances, and this kind of principle of full consideration of mutual interests should be extended to all countries of the Commonwealth. Only in this way will we ensure our collective security and be able to work together in the name of high goals that are clear to everyone, in the name of our common good without violating the interests of all other countries. The time will come - and I am sure that it will come - when the institution of common citizenship will become a reality, but we will leave this to be decided by the future, whose outstretched hand many of us already see.

However, we must first ask ourselves whether the special relationship between the United States and the Commonwealth will interfere with the fulfillment of our common responsibilities to the United Nations, which should be our main concern? My answer is unequivocal: relations of this kind between any countries will not only not interfere with this, but, on the contrary, will serve as the most reliable means by which such a worldwide

an organization like the UN will achieve truly high status and effective influence. Already there is a special relationship between the United States and Canada, as I have already mentioned, and at the same time the United States has established the same relationship with the South American republics. We, the British, have concluded a treaty of cooperation and mutual assistance for a period of 20 years with Soviet Russia, and I quite agree with Mr. Bevin, the British Foreign Secretary, that this treaty can be extended to 50 years - at least we are ready for this . Our only goal in such agreements is mutual assistance and cooperation. The alliance of Britain with Portugal has not been interrupted since its conclusion, that is, since 1384, and our cooperation with this country was especially fruitful at the critical moments of the recently ended war. None of the agreements I have named contradict the general interests of any countries that are subjects of international treaties, or the activities of any world organization - on the contrary, they only contribute to them. It is not without reason that it is said: “In My Father’s house are many mansions.”10 Alliances that presuppose special, bilateral relations between member states of the United Nations, but do not have an aggressive orientation against any other countries and do not harbor any hidden agendas, incompatible with the UN Charter, not only do not harm anyone, but are also very useful - I would even say, simply necessary.

Earlier I spoke about the Temple of Peace. This temple must be erected by builders from all over the world. If two builders know each other well, if they are on good terms, if their families communicate with each other, if they have mutual “faith in each other, hope for a better future for each other and tolerance for each other’s shortcomings” (to use a good expression, which I read the other day in one of your newspapers), then why don’t they work together, solving common problems as friends and partners? Why shouldn't they use common tools, thereby increasing the productivity of their work? And really, why shouldn't they do this? For otherwise the Temple of Peace will not be built, and if it is, it will soon fall to pieces, so that we will again be convinced that we have never learned anything, and we will have to study again, for the third time, in a cruel school war, and this science will cost us a hundred times more than the one we recently went through. And then the dark Middle Ages will return, the Stone Age will return on the sparkling wings of science, and those achievements of thought that promised immeasurable material benefits to humanity may turn into its complete destruction. Know, I tell you: we have very little time left. We cannot allow events to develop by themselves and for the hour to come when it is too late to change anything. If this requires the fraternal alliance that I spoke about, with all the advantages that it can give us, among which the main thing is strengthening the mutual security of our

two countries, then let us make sure that all humanity knows about this great event and that this union plays its significant role in laying the foundation for lasting peace. Let's choose the path of wisdom. It is better to prevent a disease in advance than to treat it.

Today, a dark shadow has fallen on the stage of post-war life, which until recently shone in the bright light of the allied victory. No one can say what can be expected in the near future from Soviet Russia and the international communist community led by it and what the limits, if any, of their expansionist aspirations and persistent efforts to convert the whole world to their faith. I personally admire the heroic Russian people and have great respect for my wartime comrade, Marshal Stalin. In Britain - as, I have no doubt, in you too in America - they treat all the peoples of Soviet Russia with deep sympathy and sincere affection. Despite the numerous disagreements with the Russians and all sorts of problems arising in connection with this, we intend to further strengthen friendly relations with them. We understand the desire of the Russians to secure their western borders and thereby eliminate the possibility of new German aggression. We are glad that Russia has taken its rightful place among the leading countries of the world. We are glad to see her flag on the wide expanses of the seas. And most importantly, we are glad that the ties between the Russian people and our two kindred peoples on both sides of the Atlantic

are becoming more regular and lasting. At the same time, I consider it my duty to draw your attention to certain facts that give an idea of ​​the current situation in Europe, setting them out before you as I see them, to which, I hope, you will not object.

Stretching across the continent from Stettin11 on the Baltic Sea to Trieste on the Adriatic Sea, the Iron Curtain fell over Europe. Capitals of the states of Central and of Eastern Europe- states whose history goes back many, many centuries - found themselves on the other side of the curtain. Warsaw and Berlin, Prague and Vienna12, Budapest and Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia - all these glorious capital cities with all their inhabitants and the entire population of the cities and regions surrounding them fell, as I would call it, into the sphere of Soviet influence. This influence is manifested in different forms, but no one can get away from him. Moreover, these countries are subject to increasingly significant control, and often direct pressure, from Moscow. Athens alone, the capital of ancient and ever-beautiful Greece, was given the opportunity to decide its future in free and equal elections held under the supervision of Great Britain, the United States and France. The Polish government, controlled by Russia and clearly encouraged by it, is taking monstrous and mostly unreasonably harsh sanctions against Germany, providing for the massive, unheard-of scale deportation of Germans, millions

expelled from Poland. The communist parties of Eastern European states, which have never been distinguished by their numbers, have acquired an inordinately huge role in the life of their countries, clearly disproportionate to the number of party members, and are now striving to gain completely uncontrolled power. The governments in all these countries cannot be called anything other than policemen, and the existence of true democracy in them, with the possible exception of Czechoslovakia, cannot be said, at least at the present time.

Turkey and Persia13 are seriously alarmed by the territorial claims presented to them by Moscow and the pressure it exerts in connection with this, and in Berlin the Russians are trying to create something like a communist party so that it becomes ruling in the occupation zone of Germany, and for this purpose they are exerting a number of German leaders professing leftist views received special patronage. Meanwhile, when the last battles ended in June last year, American and British troops, in accordance with a previously reached agreement, retreated to the west to a depth of up to 150 miles, along the entire front line, the length of which is almost 400 miles, thereby ceding this vast territory to our Russian allies, although it was conquered by armies Western countries. And if now the Soviet government tries, contrary to the wishes of the West, to build a pro-communist Germany in its occupation zone, then this will lead to the emergence in the British

and the American zones of new and very serious problems, since the Germans who lost the war would see this as an opportunity to become the subject of bargaining between the Soviets and Western democracies. Whatever conclusions may be drawn from the facts I have presented - and this is real facts, and not my idle speculation, what we see today is not the democratic Europe we fought in the war to build. And this is not the Europe that can become a guarantor of lasting peace.

The post-war world cannot become truly secure without the construction of a new, united Europe, none of whose nations should feel completely rejected from the European family of nations. The cause of both world wars, which we witnessed, like any other wars of previous times, was the strife between the largest and most ancient European nations. Twice already in the last quarter of a century we have seen how the United States, contrary to its will and its traditions, despite a completely understandable reluctance to participate in any kind of conflict, was nevertheless drawn into a war by objective forces that it could not resist, and American assistance in both cases, in many ways ensured the victory of our just cause, which, alas, came at the cost of enormous sacrifices and destruction. Twice already America was forced to send millions of its sons across the Atlantic Ocean, where they found war and chaos, but from now on war and chaos themselves will find the country where they would like to reign, no matter where on Earth it is -

whether where the sun rises, where it sets, or somewhere in between these points. That is why we must, within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter, do everything in our power to achieve the great goal of ensuring lasting peace in Europe. It seems to me that nothing can be more important than this mission.

On our side of the Iron Curtain, which divided the whole of Europe in two, there are also many reasons for concern. Although the Italian Communist Party's significant rise in influence is hampered by the fact that it is forced to support the claims of the communist-minded Marshal Tito to former Italian territories in the upper Adriatic Sea, Italy's future remains largely uncertain. As for France, I cannot imagine that the revival of Europe would be possible without restoring the former significance of this country. great country. All my political life I have stood for a strong France and have never lost faith in its special destiny, even in its most difficult times. I still don’t lose this faith.

In a number of countries around the world, although they are located far from Russian borders, communist fifth columns are being created, acting in amazing harmony and harmony, in full accordance with the guidelines emanating from the communist center. Communist parties and their fifth columns in all these countries pose a huge and, alas, growing threat

for Christian civilization, and the only exceptions are the United States of America and the British Commonwealth of Nations, where communist ideas have not yet become widespread.

These are the real facts that we are faced with today, literally on the second day after great victory, obtained by us, together with our valiant comrades in arms, in the name of freedom and democracy throughout the world. But no matter how depressing these facts may seem to us, it would be highest degree It is unwise and short-sighted on our part not to take them into account and not draw appropriate conclusions from them before it is too late.

State of affairs on Far East, and especially in Manchuria, is also alarming. The terms of the agreement reached at the Yalta Conference14, in which I took part, were extremely beneficial for Soviet Russia, and this is explained by the fact that at the time the agreement was signed, no one could guarantee that the war with Germany would not drag on until the summer, or even until autumn 1945. On the other hand, then it seemed to everyone that the war with Japan would continue for at least 18 months after the end of the war with Germany. You in America are so well informed about the situation in the Far East and are such good friends of China that there is no need for me to expand further on this topic.

I considered it my duty to describe to you the ominous shadow that hangs over our world - both in the West and in the East. At the time when Versailles was signed

treaty,15 I held a high ministerial position and was a close friend of Lloyd George,16 who headed the British delegation to Versailles. Although I did not agree with very much of what happened there, overall the Versailles meeting made an indelible impression on me. The current situation makes me much less optimistic than it was back then. Those days were a time of great hope and absolute confidence that wars would be ended once and for all and that the League of Nations would be able to solve any international problem. Now I have no such hopes and no absolute confidence in the cloudless future of our suffering world.

difficulties and dangers if we simply turn a blind eye to them. We won’t be able to get away from them if we sit back and wait for the weather by the sea. In the same way, we will not be able to get away from them if we pursue a policy of endless concessions and compromises. We need a firm and reasonable policy of agreements and treaties on a mutually acceptable basis, and the longer we delay this, the more new difficulties and dangers we will face.

Communicating with our Russian friends and allies during the war, I came to the conclusion that they most admire strength and least respect weakness, especially military. Therefore, we must abandon the outdated doctrine of the balance of power, or, as it is also called, the doctrine of political balance between states. We cannot and should not build our policy based on a minimal advantage and thereby provoking anyone to measure their strength with us. If Western countries are united in their unswerving commitment to the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, they will teach others to respect these principles by their example. If they are disunited in their actions or begin to neglect their duty and waste precious time, then a disaster may indeed await us.

When at one time I saw the approaching danger and appealed to my fellow citizens and the whole world to stop it, no one listened to my words.

Meanwhile, up until 1933 or even 1935, Germany could still have been saved from the terrible fate that awaited it, and humanity would have avoided the innumerable troubles that Hitler brought upon it. In all of world history there is no other example of a war that could have been avoided as easily as the recent one. carnage, which passed with a devastating tread throughout the entire earth. It was only necessary to take the necessary measures in a timely manner, and, I am sure, World War II would have been prevented, without firing a single shot, and Germany could have become a prosperous, powerful and respected country. However, no one believed in the impending danger, and gradually, one after another, the countries of the world found themselves drawn into a monstrous whirlpool of war. We must not allow such a catastrophe to happen again, and this can only be achieved today, in 1946, by establishing normal relations and comprehensive understanding with Russia under the auspices of the United Nations. The maintenance of such relations for many, many years of peace must be ensured not only by the authority of the UN, but also by the entire might of the USA, Great Britain and other English-speaking countries and their allies. This is, in general terms, the essence of my proposals, which I allowed myself to present to my distinguished audience in my speech today, which I called “The Muscles of the World.”

No one should underestimate the strength of Great Britain and the British Commonwealth. Yes, today 46 million

the British on our island are really experiencing difficulties with food, which in wartime conditions they could only provide half of themselves with, and the situation has not yet changed for the better; Yes, the restoration of industry and the revival of our international trade after 6 years of exhausting war is not easy for us and will require a lot of effort from us, but this does not mean at all that we will not be able to survive these dark years of hardship and withstand the trials that befall us with the same the honor with which they passed through the war years. In less than half a century, 70 or 80 million Britons living both on our small island and throughout the wide world - which does not prevent them from being united in their commitment to the long-standing British traditions, the British way of life and the cause of preserving peace between nations - will live in peace and happiness, enjoying all the benefits of civilization. If the people of Great Britain and the British Commonwealth of Nations join forces with the people of the United States of America on the basis of close cooperation in all areas and spheres - in the air, and at sea, and in science, and in technology, and in culture - then the world will forget about turbulent times, when the notorious, but so unstable balance of power could provoke some countries to pursue a policy of exorbitant ambitions and adventurism, and humanity would finally be able to live in conditions of complete and guaranteed security. If we firmly adhere to the principles stipulated by the Charter of the Organization

United Nations, and to go forward with a calm and sober confidence in our own strength, but without coveting foreign territory or wealth, and without seeking to establish total control over the thoughts of our citizens; if the moral and material strength of the British and their commitment to high ideals are united with yours in the fraternal union of our countries and peoples, then a wide road to the future will open before us - and not only before us, but before all humanity, and not only throughout life one generation, but for many centuries to come.

Notes

1 It was no accident that Churchill chose Westminster College to deliver his famous speech. By that time he had already left the post of Prime Minister of England, so he considered it appropriate to speak as a private citizen in some small town in front of students of a provincial but respectable educational institution, which was Westminster College, and this would only highlight the importance of his carefully prepared speech on the most pressing issues of the post-war period. The significance of this speech is determined not only by its content, but also by the enormous influence of Winston Churchill on the minds of mankind - after all, it was not for nothing that he was called the most outstanding politician of the twentieth century. (Hereinafter, comments and notes from the translator.)

2 “Westminster”, both in England and in America, is often called the English Parliament, since the Houses of Parliament are located in Westminster, the central district of London. This gave Churchill the basis to begin his speech with a play on words, based on the consonance of the name of the American college and the English parliament. In addition, Churchill jokingly gave his audience

understand that as a politician, speaker, and in many ways as a person, he developed as a member of parliament and prime minister of England, who often has to speak before parliament.

3 Leader of the Opposition - the leader of the largest opposition party (in this case, the Conservative) in the House of Commons of the British Parliament; heads the so-called “shadow cabinet” and receives a salary from the government

4 With this phrase, Churchill hints that although the United States was the initiator of the creation of the League of Nations, which lasted from 1919 to 1946, it never joined it.

5 The British Empire, which included Great Britain and its colonial possessions, accounted for more than 25 percent of the world's territory and population by the end of the First World War. Since the 20s. last century, in the process of decay colonial system, the importance and power of the British Empire began to decline rapidly, and from 1931 to 1947. it was called the British Commonwealth of Nations. Currently, this interstate association, officially headed by the Queen of England, is simply called the Commonwealth and includes, in addition to Great Britain, another 47 states, which include former English colonies, dominions and dependent territories. It is quite obvious that Churchill, who saw the collapse of the British Empire, uses this outdated name quite deliberately, as a kind of oratorical device - in order to emphasize the importance of Great Britain and the British Commonwealth of Nations.

6 Magna Carta - a charter signed in 1215 by the English king John the Landless under pressure from the rebel barons and granting greater rights to large feudal lords; along with other acts, forms the basis of English constitutional practice.

7 Bill of Rights - adopted in 1689 to limit the power of the crown and guarantee the rights of the English Parliament; laid the foundations of the English constitutional monarchy.

8 Habeas Corpus Act - English law on the integrity of the person, requiring the production of an arrested person before a court within a certain period of time provided for due process and determination of the legality of the arrest; adopted in 1679

9 Common law is the traditional uncodified, i.e. not systematized in the form of a code, UK law.

10 Gospel of John, XIV, 2.

11 Stettin - German name Polish city of Szczecin.

12 At the end of the 2nd World War, Austria was divided into four occupation zones - American, British, French and Soviet; Vienna entered the Soviet zone. At the end of 1945, free, democratic elections were held in Austria, as a result of which this state acquired independent status and the occupation zones were abolished.

13 Persia was the official name of Iran until 1935.

14 Yalta, or Crimean, conference - took place on February 4, 1945 in Yalta; The conference was attended by heads of government of 3 allied powers in World War 2: J.V. Stalin (USSR), F.D. Roosevelt (USA) and W. Churchill (Great Britain). The basic principles of the post-war policy of the Allied powers were outlined with the aim of creating lasting peace and a system of international security. The USSR agreed, under certain conditions, to enter the war against Japan 2 - 3 months after the end of the war in Europe.

15 The Treaty of Versailles, which completed the First world war, was signed at Versailles on June 28, 1919 by the victorious powers - the USA, the British Empire, France, Italy and other countries, on the one hand, and defeated Germany, on the other.

16 David Lloyd George (1863-1945) - Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1916-1922.

Don't lose it. Subscribe and receive a link to the article in your email.

Churchill played with words and meanings like Vivaldi played with the sound of a violin. He was eloquent, witty, caustic, rude, weighed every word or spoke rashly. The epistolary legacy of this great man is amazing, and much of what he said has become aphorisms and is now published in separate editions.

Most of us only know about W. Churchill's Fulton speech, while the Briton in history made several famous speeches that set an example and inspire thousands of people. It is possible that W. Churchill will have even more such speeches than others famous people. They are all different - some he read on the radio, others he spoke to graduates of colleges and schools, some lasted half an hour, others lasted a couple of sentences. But there is something unifying, something that characterizes other famous performances, something that overshadows artistic beauty. Depth. According to the testimony of contemporaries, during the war years, life in Britain practically came to a standstill during Churchill’s radio addresses. Children and adults, young and old gathered at the reception centers. His speeches not only inspired hope, they became a kind of ritual. History does not know such examples, and this makes it necessary to become familiar with at least part of the legacy of the British Prime Minister.

Parliamentary speeches of W. Churchill “Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat” and “Their Finest Hour”

On May 13, 1940, taking office as Prime Minister, Churchill, speaking about the upcoming trials of the war, used all his eloquence in a short address. His famous speech "Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat" is translated into Russian as "Blood, toil, tears and sweat." We are sure that this performance will not leave anyone indifferent. Judge for yourself - here is part of what was said:

I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We are facing a severe test. We face many long months of struggle and suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I answer: to wage war by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can bestow upon us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, the like of which has never been equaled in the dark and sorrowful record of human crimes.

This is our policy. What is our goal, you ask? I can answer in one word: victory - victory at any cost, victory despite all the horrors; victory, no matter how long and thorny the path to it may be; without victory we will not survive. It is necessary to understand: the British Empire will not be able to survive - everything for which it existed will perish, everything that humanity has defended for centuries, what it has strived for for centuries, and what it will strive for will perish. However, I accept my responsibilities with energy and hope. I am sure that people will not let our cause die.

Now I feel the right to demand help from everyone, and I say: “Let’s go forward together, combining our forces.”

From a rhetorical perspective, the strengths of this speech are directness, honesty, and confidence expressed. But what is the recipe for success? It is no secret that Churchill always thought through and competently approached his speeches. In addition to the general style of address, one should highlight the use of individual words, in particular, with the help of which the author shows his own position. When tied to the situation in which the speech was delivered, they look not only relevant, but also organic.

He is also a master at using summons. In the conditions of that time, appealing to global values ​​(the existence of the British Empire), Churchill, with his appeals, addressed both the people whose support was needed and representatives of various political forces, painting a picture in such a way that there simply could not be two views on what was happening.

A month after his first speech as prime minister, England's ally France was defeated. W. Churchill’s speech on this occasion (“TheirFinestHour”; translated into Russian – “Their finest hour") in the House of Commons on June 18 was no less impressive, but more like a report with statistical data. With its most picturesque final part in the evening of the same day, he addressed the British nation. The short radio message became so popular that today it is considered one of the most famous speeches of a politician and an example of rhetorical skill:

Summing up this terrible conclusion, and soberly assessing the dangers that threaten us, I see serious reasons for vigilance and effort, but I see no reason for panic and fear. During the first four years last war the allies were haunted by continuous failures and disappointments... We have repeatedly asked ourselves the question: “How will we achieve victory?” - and no one could give an exact answer to it until in the end, completely unexpectedly and suddenly, our terrible enemy capitulated to us, and we reveled in the victory so much that in our madness we threw away its fruits...

The battle, which General Weygand called the Battle of France, is over. I believe the Battle of Britain is about to begin. The existence of Christian civilization depends on the outcome of this battle. The lives of the British themselves depend on its outcome, as well as the preservation of the institutions of statehood and our empire. Very soon the full fury and power of the enemy will fall upon us, but Hitler knows that he will either have to crush us on this island or lose the war. If we can resist it, all of Europe can become free and a wide path to sun-drenched heights will open before the whole world. But if we fall, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and loved, will fall into the abyss of a new Middle Ages, which the luminaries of perverted science will make even darker and, perhaps, more protracted. Let us therefore turn to our duty and hold ourselves in such a way that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth of Nations are destined to exist for another thousand years, then, after a thousand years, people can say: “This was their finest hour.”

Already the first words of a speech allow the author to gain the attention of the audience. For this purpose, W. Churchill uses such methods as warning and increasing voltage. “To sum up this terrible conclusion...” - this phrase forces listeners to fully concentrate on what the speaker is saying.

The comparison he chose is indicative and very successful, based, among other things, on the author’s personal beliefs: if Germany wins, the world will face a new era of the Middle Ages. On the basis that Britain's duty to all Christian world(to some extent - hyperbolization - another technique) - to prevent such a scenario, a call for perseverance is being built. It is very important that, despite the topic of the address, the speech is very poetic. Churchill gives analogies of the sunlit peaks that will open up to the whole world if Britain copes with its task. It's really motivating.

Fulton speech

Perhaps the most famous speech in the historical and political context by W. Churchill was delivered by him to graduates of Westminster College in Fulton, USA, on March 5, 1946. Soviet politicians it was seen as a signal for the start of the Cold War, but the British politician himself was not an official at the time. Labor was in power, while the Conservative Churchill only expressed his own views, defending the idea of ​​the need for a close union between Great Britain and the United States. But his harsh views and assessments of communism were quickly picked up by the press, which especially liked the idea of ​​an “Iron Curtain.” Thus, thanks to close attention from the public, the Fulton speech became one of the most famous in the history of the twentieth century. She summed up the new balance of power in the world, which has become bipolar, and the United States has taken the place of the sole leader of the West.

.

2. Text of Churchill’s “Fulton speech”

I am happy to have arrived at Westminster College today and to have been awarded my degree by you. The name "Westminster" says something to me. I think I heard it somewhere. After all, it was at Westminster that I received the lion's share of my education in the field of politics, dialectics, rhetoric, and something else. In essence, you and I were educated in the same or similar educational institutions.

It is also an honor, perhaps almost unique, for a private citizen to be introduced to an academic audience by the President of the United States. Burdened with many different concerns and responsibilities, which he does not crave, but which he does not run from, the President traveled 1000 miles in order to honor our meeting today with his presence and emphasize its significance, giving me the opportunity to address this kindred country, my compatriots on the other side of the ocean, and maybe also to some other countries.

The President has already told you his desire, which I am sure coincides with yours, that I should be completely free to give you my honest and faithful advice in these troubled and troubled times.

I will, of course, take advantage of this freedom given to me and feel all the more entitled to do so since whatever personal ambitions I may have had in my younger years have long been satisfied beyond my greatest dreams. I must, however, make it clear that I have neither official assignment nor status for this kind of speech, and I speak only on my own behalf. So what you see is only what you see.

Therefore, I can take the liberty of reflecting on the experiences of the life I have lived to reflect on the problems that beset us immediately after our complete victory on the battlefields, and try to do my best to ensure the preservation of what was gained with such sacrifice and suffering for the sake of the future glory and security of humanity.

The United States is currently at the pinnacle of global power. Today is a solemn moment for American democracy, for along with its superior power it has accepted an incredible responsibility to the future. As you look around, you should feel not only a sense of accomplishment, but also concern that you may not be up to par with what is expected of you. The opportunity is there, and it is completely clear to both our countries. To reject them, ignore them, or squander them uselessly would be to incur endless reproaches of future times.

Constancy of thought, perseverance in achieving the goal and great simplicity of decisions should guide and determine the behavior of the English-speaking countries in time of peace, as it did in time of war. We must and, I think, can rise to the occasion of this strict requirement.

When the US military is faced with a serious situation, it usually prefaces its directives with the words "overall strategic concept." There is wisdom in this because having such a concept leads to clarity of thinking. The general strategic concept that we must adhere to today is nothing less than the security and well-being, freedom and progress of all families, all people in all countries. I mean first of all the millions of cottages and apartment buildings, the inhabitants of which, despite the vicissitudes and difficulties of life, strive to protect their households from hardship and raise their families in the fear of the Lord or based on ethical principles, which often play an important role. To ensure the safety of these countless dwellings, they must be protected from two main evils - war and tyranny. Everyone knows the terrible shock experienced by any family when the curse of war falls on its breadwinner, who works for her and overcomes the hardships of life. The terrible destruction of Europe with all its former values ​​and a large part of Asia yawns before our eyes. When the intentions of malicious people or the aggressive aspirations of powerful powers destroy the foundations of civilized society in many parts of the world, ordinary people are faced with difficulties that they cannot cope with. For them, everything is distorted, broken, or completely ground into powder.

Standing here on this quiet day, I shudder to think of what is happening in real life with millions of people and what will happen to them when the planet is struck by famine. No one can calculate what is called “the incalculable sum of human suffering.” Our main task and responsibility is to protect the families of ordinary people from the horrors and misfortunes of another war. We all agree on this.

Our American military colleagues, after they have defined the “overall strategic concept” and calculated all available resources, always move on to the next stage - the search for means of its implementation. There is also general agreement on this issue. A world organization has already been formed with the fundamental goal of preventing war. The UN, the successor to the League of Nations with the crucial addition of the United States and all that means, has already begun its work. We must ensure the success of this activity, so that it is real and not fictitious, so that this organization is a force capable of action and not just shaking the air, and so that it becomes a genuine Temple of Peace, in which the battle shields of many countries can be hung , and not just chopping down the world's Tower of Babel. Before we can free ourselves from the necessity of national armaments for self-preservation, we must be sure that our temple is not built on quicksand or mire, but on a solid rocky foundation. All who have their eyes open know that our journey will be difficult and long, but if we firmly follow the course that we followed during the two world wars (and, unfortunately, did not follow in between), then I have there is no doubt that in the end we will be able to achieve our common goal.

Here I also have a practical proposal for action. Courts cannot function without sheriffs and constables. The United Nations must immediately begin equipping an international military force. In such a matter we can only advance gradually, but we must start now. I propose that all States be invited to place at the disposal of the World Organization a number of air force squadrons. These squadrons would be trained in their own countries, but would be transferred on a rotating basis from one country to another. Pilots would wear military uniform their countries, but with different insignia. They could not be required to take part in hostilities against their own country, but in all other respects they would be directed by the World Organization. Such forces could begin at a modest level and be built upon as confidence grows. I wanted this done after the First World War and I truly believe it can be done now.

However, it would be wrong and imprudent to trust the secret information and experience of creating an atomic bomb, currently possessed by the United States, Great Britain and Canada, to a World Organization still in its infancy. It would be criminal madness to let these weapons go adrift in a world still in turmoil and ununited. Not a single person in any country has slept worse because the information, means and raw materials for creating this bomb are now concentrated mainly in American hands. I don’t think we would be sleeping so peacefully now if the situation were reversed and some communist or neo-fascist state monopolized this terrible remedy for some time. The mere fear of it would be enough for totalitarian systems to impose themselves on the free democratic world. The horrific consequences of this would be beyond human imagination. The Lord has commanded that this should not happen, and we still have time to put our house in order before such a danger arises. But even if we spare no effort, we would still have to have a superiority sufficiently striking to have an effective deterrent against its use or the threat of such use by other countries. Ultimately, when the true brotherhood of man would be actually realized in the form of some World Organization, which would have all the necessary practical means to make it effective, such powers could be transferred to it.

Now I come to the second danger that awaits families and ordinary people, namely, tyranny. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that the freedoms enjoyed by citizens throughout the British Empire do not apply in a significant number of countries; some of them are quite powerful. In these states, power is imposed on the common people by pervasive police governments. The power of the state is exercised without limitation by dictators or closely knit oligarchies that rule with the help of a privileged party and political police. At the present time, when difficulties are still so many, it cannot be our duty to interfere forcibly in the internal affairs of countries with which we are not at war. We must unceasingly and fearlessly proclaim the great principles of liberty and human rights which are the common heritage of the English-speaking world and which, in the development of the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the law of Habeas Corpus, the trial by jury and the English common law, found their most famous expression in the Declaration of Independence. They mean that the people of any country have the right and ought to be able, by constitutional action, by free unfalsified elections by secret ballot, to choose or change the character or form of government under which they live; that freedom of speech and press should prevail; that the courts, independent of the executive power, and not subject to the influence of any party, should give effect to laws which have received the approval of a large majority of the people, or have been sanctified by time or custom. These are fundamental freedom rights that every home should know. This is the message of the British and American people to all humanity. Let us preach what we do and practice what we preach.

So, I have identified two main dangers threatening people's families. I did not talk about poverty and deprivation, which often worry people the most. But if the dangers of war and tyranny are eliminated, then, undoubtedly, science and cooperation in the next few years, at most a few decades, will bring to the world, which has gone through the cruel school of war, an increase in material well-being unprecedented in the history of mankind. At present, in this sad and numbing moment, we are oppressed by hunger and despondency that have come after our colossal struggle. But this will all pass, and perhaps quickly, and there are no reasons, other than human stupidity and inhuman crime, that would prevent all countries, without exception, from taking advantage of the advent of an age of abundance. I often quote the words I heard fifty years ago from the great Irish-American speaker and friend Burke Cochrane: “There is enough for everyone. The earth is a generous mother. She will provide complete abundance of food for all her children, if only they will cultivate it in justice and peace.”

So, so far we are in complete agreement. Now, continuing to use the methodology of our general strategic concept, I come to the main thing I wanted to say here. Neither the effective prevention of war nor the permanent expansion of the influence of the World Organization can be achieved without the fraternal union of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and the British Empire and the United States. We have no time for platitudes, and I dare to speak specifically. Fraternal union requires not only the growth of friendship and mutual understanding between our sister systems of society, but also the continuation of close ties between our militaries, which should lead to the joint study of potential dangers, the compatibility of weapons and military regulations, and the exchange of officers and cadets of military technical colleges. It would also mean the continued use of existing capabilities to ensure mutual security through the shared use of all naval and air force bases. This would possibly double the mobility of the US navy and air force. This would greatly increase the mobility of the British Empire's armed forces and, as the world calmed down, provide significant financial savings. We already share a number of islands; in the near future, other islands may come into joint use. The US already has a permanent defense agreement with the Dominion of Canada, which is deeply loyal to the British Commonwealth and Empire. This agreement is more powerful than many of those often negotiated within formal alliances. This principle should be extended to all countries of the British Commonwealth with full reciprocity. This way and only this way we can, no matter what happens, protect ourselves and work together in the name of high and simple goals that are dear to us and not harmful to anyone. At the very last stage, the idea of ​​​​common citizenship can be realized (and, I believe, will ultimately be realized), but we can easily leave this question to the discretion of fate, whose hand extended towards us so many of us already clearly see.

There is, however, one important question we must ask ourselves. Would a special relationship between the United States and the British Commonwealth be compatible with a fundamental allegiance to the World Organization? My answer: such a relationship, on the contrary, is probably the only means by which this organization can gain status and power. Special relations already exist between the United States and Canada and the South American republics. We also have a 20-year agreement on cooperation and mutual assistance with Russia. I agree with the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Bevin, that this treaty, to the extent that it depends on us, can be concluded for 50 years. Our only goal is mutual assistance and cooperation. Our alliance with Portugal produced fruitful results at critical moments of the last war. None of these agreements conflict with the general interests of the world agreement. On the contrary, they can help the work of the World Organization. “There is room for everyone in the house of the Lord.” A special relationship between the United Nations, which is not aggressive against any country and does not carry within it plans incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations, is not only not harmful, but useful and, I believe, necessary.

I have already spoken about the Temple of Peace. Workers from all countries must build this Temple. If two of these builders know each other particularly well and are old friends, if their families are mixed and, to quote Clever words, which caught my eye the day before yesterday, “if they have faith in each other’s goals, hope for each other’s future and tolerance for each other’s shortcomings,” then why can’t they work together for a common goal as friends and partners? Why can’t they share tools and thus increase each other’s ability to work? They not only can, but must do this, otherwise the Temple will not be built or will collapse after construction by mediocre students, and we will again, for the third time, study in the school of war, which will be incomparably more cruel than the one from which we just left.

The times of the Middle Ages may return, and on the sparkling wings of science the Stone Age may return, and what can now be showered on humanity with immeasurable material benefits may lead to its complete destruction. I therefore appeal: be vigilant. Perhaps there is little time left. Let's not let things happen until it's too late. If we want that fraternal union of which I have just spoken, with all the additional strength and security which both our countries can derive from it, let us make this great cause known everywhere and play its part in strengthening the foundations of peace. It is better to prevent a disease than to treat it.

A shadow has fallen on the picture of the world, so recently illuminated by the victory of the Allies. Nobody knows what Soviet Russia and its international communist organization intend to do in the near future and what are the limits, if any, to their expansionist and conversionist tendencies. I deeply admire and honor the valiant Russian people and my wartime comrade, Marshal Stalin. In England - and I have no doubt here too - there is deep sympathy and good will for all the peoples of Russia and a determination to overcome numerous differences and breakdowns in the name of establishing lasting friendship. We understand that Russia needs to ensure the security of its western borders from a possible resumption of German aggression. We are glad to see it in its rightful place among the world's leading powers. We salute her flag on the seas. And above all, we welcome the constant, frequent and strengthening ties between the Russian and our peoples on both sides of the Atlantic. However, I consider it my duty to state to you some facts—I am sure that you wish me to state to you the facts as they appear to me—about the present situation in Europe.

From Stettin on the Baltic to Trieste on the Adriatic, an iron curtain fell across the continent. On the other side of the curtain are all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe - Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest, Sofia. All these famous cities and the populations in their areas found themselves within what I call the Soviet sphere, all of them in one form or another subject not only to Soviet influence, but also to significant and increasing control from Moscow. Only Athens, with its immortal glory, can freely determine its future in elections with the participation of British, American and French observers. The Polish government, under Russian domination, is encouraged to make enormous and unjust encroachments on Germany, leading to the mass expulsion of millions of Germans on a deplorable and unprecedented scale. The Communist parties, which were very small in all these states of Eastern Europe, have achieved exceptional power, far exceeding their numbers, and are everywhere seeking to establish totalitarian control. Almost all of these countries are run by police governments, and to this day, with the exception of Czechoslovakia, they have no true democracy. Turkey and Persia are deeply concerned and concerned about the claims being made against them and the pressure they are being subjected to from the Moscow government. In Berlin, the Russians are attempting to create a quasi-communist party in their zone of occupied Germany by granting special privileges to groups of left-wing German leaders.

After the fighting last June, the American and British armies, in accordance with an earlier agreement, withdrew to the West along a front of almost 400 miles, to a depth in some cases reaching 150 miles, so that our Russian allies would occupy this vast territory that they had conquered Western democracies.

If the Soviet Government now tries by separate action to create a pro-Communist Germany in its zone, this will cause new serious difficulties in the British and American zones and will give the defeated Germans the opportunity to bargain between the Soviets and the Western democracies. Whatever conclusions can be drawn from these facts - and these are all facts - this will clearly not be the liberated Europe for which we fought. And not Europe, which has the necessary prerequisites for creating a lasting peace.

The security of the world requires a new unity in Europe, from which neither side should be alienated forever. The quarrels of these powerful indigenous races in Europe resulted in the world wars that we witnessed or that broke out in former times. Twice during our lifetime the United States, against its wishes and traditions and against arguments which cannot be misunderstood, has been drawn by irresistible forces into these wars in order to secure the victory of a just cause, but only after terrible carnage and devastation. Twice the United States was forced to send millions of its young men to war for Atlantic Ocean. But at present, war can befall any country, no matter where it is between sunset and dawn. We must, of course, act with the conscious aim of the great pacification of Europe within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter. This, in my opinion, is a policy of exceptional importance.

On the other side of the Iron Curtain that has descended across Europe, there are other reasons for concern. In Italy, the activities of the Communist Party were seriously constrained by the need to support the claims of the Communist-trained Marshal Tito to former Italian territory in the center of the Adriatic. However, the situation in Italy remains uncertain. Again, it is impossible to imagine a restored Europe without a strong France. All my life I have advocated for a strong France and never, even in the darkest times, have I lost faith in its future. And now I do not lose this faith. However, in many countries around the world, far from the borders of Russia, communist fifth columns have been created, which act in complete unity and absolute obedience to the directives they receive from the communist center. With the exception of the British Commonwealth and the United States, where communism is in its infancy, the communist parties, or fifth columns, pose an ever-increasing challenge and danger to Christian civilization. All these are painful facts that have to be talked about immediately after the victory achieved by such a magnificent comradeship in arms in the name of peace and democracy. But it would be extremely unwise not to see them while there is still time. There are also concerns about prospects in the Far East, especially Manchuria. The agreement reached in Yalta, to which I was involved, was extremely favorable for Russia. But it was concluded at a time when no one could say that the war would end in the summer or fall of 1945, and when the war with Japan was expected to continue within 18 months of the end of the war with Germany. In your country you are so well informed about the Far East and are such loyal friends of China that there is no need for me to dwell on the situation there.

I felt obliged to outline to you the shadow that, both in the West and in the East, falls over the whole world. During imprisonment Treaty of Versailles I was a minister and close friend of Mr. Lloyd George, who headed the British delegation to Versailles. I did not agree with much of what was done there, but I have a very vivid impression of the situation at that time, and it pains me to compare it with the present. These were times of great expectation and boundless confidence that there would be no more wars and that the League of Nations would become all-powerful. Today I do not see or feel such confidence and such hope in our tormented world.

On the other hand, I drive away the idea that a new war is inevitable, especially in the very near future. And precisely because I am confident that our destinies are in our hands and we are able to save the future, I consider it my duty to speak out on this issue, since I have the opportunity and opportunity to do so. I don't believe that Russia wants war. What it wants is the fruits of war and the unlimited expansion of its power and doctrines. But what we must think about here today, while there is still time, is to prevent wars forever and create conditions for freedom and democracy as quickly as possible in all countries. Our difficulties and dangers will not disappear if we turn a blind eye to them or simply wait for something to happen or pursue a policy of appeasement. We need to achieve a settlement, and the longer it takes, the more difficult it will be and the more formidable the dangers before us will become. From what I observed in the behavior of our Russian friends and allies during the war, I came to the conclusion that they respect nothing more than strength, and have no less respect for anything than military weakness. For this reason the old doctrine of the balance of power is no longer applicable. We cannot allow ourselves - as far as it is in our power - to act from a position of small advantage, which leads to the temptation to try our strength. If the Western democracies stand together in their firm commitment to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, their influence on the development of these principles will be enormous and it is unlikely that anyone will be able to shake them. If, however, they are disunited or unable to fulfill their duty, and if they miss these decisive years, then disaster will indeed befall us.

Last time, observing such a development of events, I cried out loudly to my compatriots and to the whole world, but no one wanted to listen. Until 1933 or even until 1935, Germany could have been saved from the terrible fate that befell it, and we would have been spared the misfortunes that Hitler brought upon humanity. Never in history has there been a war that could have been more easily prevented by timely action than the one that has just devastated vast areas of the globe. It, I am convinced, could have been prevented without firing a shot, and today Germany would have been a powerful, prosperous and respected country; but then they didn’t want to listen to me, and one after another we found ourselves drawn into a terrible tornado. We must not allow this to happen again.

Now this can only be achieved by achieving today, in 1946, a good understanding with Russia on all issues under the general auspices of the United Nations, maintaining through this world instrument this good understanding for many years, drawing on the full power of the English-speaking world and all those who is associated with him. Let no one underestimate the formidable power of the British Empire and Commonwealth. May you see 46 million people on our island who are food insecure, and may we have difficulty rebuilding our industry and export trade after six years of desperate war effort; do not think that we cannot pass through this dark period of hardship as we passed through the glorious years of suffering, or that in half a century there will not be 70 or 80 million of us living throughout the world and united in the defense of our traditions, our image life and those universal values ​​that you and I profess. If the people of the British Commonwealth and the United States act together, for all that such cooperation means in the air, at sea, in science and economics, then that turbulent, unstable balance of power which would tempt ambition or adventurism will be eliminated. On the contrary, there will be complete confidence in safety. If we faithfully observe the Charter of the United Nations, and move forward with calm and sober strength, without laying claim to foreign lands and wealth, and without seeking to establish arbitrary control over the thoughts of men, if all the moral and material forces of Britain unite with yours in fraternal union, then broad paths to the future will open - not only for us, but for everyone, not only for our time, but also for the century ahead.

Churchill's Balkan adventure In subsequent years, Churchill repeatedly tried to deny that, instead of Operation Overlord, he was making plans to invade the continent in the eastern Mediterranean, primarily in the Balkans. Of course, he had such plans, and they were

Churchill's behind-the-scenes maneuvers On the way home from Tehran, while in Cairo, Churchill fell ill with pneumonia and lay in bed for several weeks. He was then transported to Marrakesh for further recovery. But even bedridden, the Prime Minister did not weaken his

Churchill's worries In letters to Roosevelt throughout the summer and autumn of 1944, the British prime minister again and again returned to the problem of relations with the Soviet Union in connection with the victorious advance of the Red Army to the west. Churchill was particularly concerned that

Romance novels Churchill Churchill was definitely not a Don Juan. In the almost half a century that has passed since his death, no memoirs or documents have appeared to convict him of adultery. Winston's premarital love interests were well known even during

Churchill's Diet Around the world, Churchill had a strong reputation as a glutton and drunkard. One of Winston’s sins, undoubtedly, was gluttony, and he was not indifferent to alcohol, as well as to Havana cigars. However, neither a glutton nor a heavy smoker (cigars are still safer

Death of Churchill Churchill had a philosophical attitude towards death. He said: “I am ready to meet the Creator, but I don’t know if the Creator is ready for such a difficult test as meeting me!” Churchill also stated: “I am not afraid of death, but I am going to do it in the best possible way.” April 8

Image of Churchill Churchill's successor as prime minister, Anthony Eden, once called him a brilliant showman. Winston’s friend, French writer Andre Maurois, argued: “Churchill is a great expert in the laws of psychology. He skillfully plays off his outlandish hat, his excessively thick

Chapter 25 No Place for Churchill January 2, 1937 Churchill was in Chartwell, where he met New Year. There he learned that his friend, Foreign Office official Ralph Wigram, who had supplied him with information and who had recently been ill, had died

IX Memoirs of Winston Churchill Evaluation of the actions of U-47 in Scapa Flow. In the midst of all these affairs, an event suddenly occurred that dealt a blow to the Admiralty in the most sensitive place. I mentioned the alarm caused by the rumor of the appearance of a German submarine in Scapa Flow, driving out the Grand

Text of speech by L.P. Beria at a funeral meeting on March 9, 1953 during the funeral of I.V. Stalin Dear comrades, friends! It is difficult to express in words the feeling of great sorrow that our party and the people of our country, all progressive humanity, are experiencing these days. Stalin has passed away