ORIGINS OF THE COLD WAR:
Document: Winston Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech, Fulton Missouri, 5 March, 1946
Despite losing the British General Election in 1945 Winston Churchill remained an important international statesman and accepted an invitation to give the address at Westminster College in Fulton. Here he delivered his view on the growing divisions in Europe and the need for the English speaking nations to stand together. The speech had been shown to Truman beforehand and was delivered in his presence and with his endorsement.
------
It is also an honor, ladies and gentlemen, perhaps almost unique, for a private visitor to be introduced to an academic audience by the President of the United States. Amid his heavy burdens, duties, and responsibilities--unsought but not recoiled from--the President has traveled a thousand miles to dignify and magnify our meeting here to-day and to give me an opportunity of addressing this kindred nation, as well as my own countrymen across the ocean, and perhaps some other countries too.
Ladies and gentlemen, the United States stands at this time at the pinnacle of world power. It is a solemn moment for the American Democracy. For with primacy in power is also joined an awe-inspiring accountability to the future. If you look around you, you must feel not only the sense of duty done but also you must feel anxiety lest you fall below the level of achievement. Opportunity is here and now, clear and shining for both our countries. To reject it or ignore it or fritter it away will bring upon us all the long reproaches of the after-time. It is necessary that the constancy of mind, persistency of purpose, and the grand simplicity of decision shall rule and guide the conduct of the English-speaking peoples in peace as they did in war. We must, and I believe we shall, prove ourselves equal to this severe requirement.
There is however an important question we must ask ourselves. Would a special relationship between the United States and the British Commonwealth be inconsistent with our over-riding loyalties to the World Organization? I reply that, on the contrary, it is probably the only means by which that organization will achieve its full stature and strength. There are already the special United States relations with Canada that I have just mentioned, and there are the relations between the United States and the South American Republics. We British have also our twenty years Treaty of Collaboration and Mutual Assistance with Soviet Russia. Special associations between members of the United Nations which have no aggressive point against any other country, which harbor no design incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations, far from being harmful, are beneficial and, as I believe, indispensable.
A shadow has fallen upon the scenes so lately light by the Allied victory. Nobody knows what Soviet Russia and its Communist international organization intends to do in the immediate future, or what are the limits, if any, to their expansive and proselytizing tendencies. I have a strong admiration and regard for the valiant Russian people and for my wartime comrade, Marshall Stalin. There is deep sympathy and goodwill in Britain -- and I doubt not here also -- towards the peoples of all the Russias and a resolve to persevere through many differences and rebuffs in establishing lasting friendships. We understand the Russian need to be secure on her western frontiers by the removal of all possibility of German aggression. We welcome Russia to her rightful place among the leading nations of the world.
It is my duty however, for I am sure you would wish me to state the facts as I see them to you. It is my duty to place before you certain facts about the present position in Europe.
From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in some cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow. Athens alone -- Greece with its immortal glories -- is free to decide its future at an election under British, American and French observation. The Russian-dominated Polish Government has been encouraged to make enormous and wrongful inroads upon Germany, and mass expulsions of millions of Germans on a scale grievous and undreamed-of are now taking place. The Communist parties, which were very small in all these Eastern States of Europe, have been raised to pre-eminence and power far beyond their numbers and are seeking everywhere to obtain totalitarian control. Police governments are prevailing in nearly every case, and so far, except in Czechoslovakia, there is no true democracy.
Turkey and Persia are both profoundly alarmed and disturbed at the claims which are being made upon them and at the pressure being exerted by the Moscow Government. An attempt is being made by the Russians in Berlin to build up a quasi-Communist party in their zone of occupied Germany by showing special favors to groups of left-wing German leaders.
The safety of the world, ladies and gentlemen, requires a new unity in Europe, from which no nation should be permanently outcast. It is from the quarrels of the strong parent races in Europe that the world wars we have witnessed, or which occurred in former times, have sprung. Twice in our own lifetime we have seen the United States, against their wished and their traditions, against arguments, the force of which it is impossible not to comprehend, twice we have seen them drawn by irresistible forces, into these wars in time to secure the victory of the good cause, but only after frightful slaughter and devastation have occurred. Twice the United States has had to send several millions of its young men across the Atlantic to find the war; but now war can find any nation, wherever it may dwell between dusk and dawn. Surely we should work with conscious purpose for a grand pacification of Europe, within the structure of the United Nations and in accordance with our Charter. That I feel opens a course of policy of very great importance.
Winston Churchill (England), Harry Truman (US), Joseph Stalin (USSR)
Winston Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech
1) How does Churchill immediately ingratiate (show great respect) to President Harry Truman of the United States?
2) What does Churchill say about the position of the United States in the world at this time in history (March 5, 1946)?
3) How does this represent a change from the world prior to World War One and Two?
4) In his speech Churchill refers to the ‘English-speaking people in peace’. How might this be considered an affront (disrespectful) to Joseph Stalin and the USSR?
5) What does Churchill infer when he says ‘a shadow has fallen’?
6) How does Churchill acknowledge the importance of Stalin and Russia (the USSR)?
7) List at least 5 of the cities whom Churchill says are being ‘subjected’ to Soviet influence?
8) What does Churchill accuse the USSR and Stalin of doing in eastern-European nations after World War Two?
9) What does Churchill say is needed to ensure the ‘safety of the world’?
10) How does statement conflict with the tone of his speech?
11) When Churchill says ‘now war can find any nation, whether it may dwell between dusk and dawn’ what recent event, an event that changed the nature of warfare, is he referring to?
ORIGINS OF THE COLD WAR:
Document: Reply of Joseph Stalin to Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech, March, 1946
Stalin regarded the speech of Churchill as important enough to reply in a speech made public by the Kremlin. Notice his linking of Churchill with Hitler, his arguments for Russian security and his belief that communism (unlike Churchill) was popular with ordinary people.
------
In substance, Mr. Churchill now stands in the position of a firebrand of war. And Mr. Churchill is not alone here. He has friends not only in England but also in the United States of America.
In this respect, one is reminded remarkably of Hitler and his friends. Hitler began to set war loose by announcing his racial theory, declaring that only people speaking the German language represent a fully valuable nation. Mr. Churchill begins to set war loose, also by a racial theory, maintaining that only nations speaking the English language are fully valuable nations, called upon to decide the destinies of the entire world.
The German racial theory brought Hitler and his friends to the conclusion that the Germans, as the only fully valuable nation, must rule over other nations. The English racial theory brings Mr. Churchill and his friends to the conclusion that nations speaking the English language, being the only fully valuable nations, should rule over the remaining nations of the world....
As a result of the German invasion, the Soviet Union has irrevocably lost in battles with the Germans, and also during the German occupation and through the expulsion of Soviet citizens to German slave labor camps, about 7,000,000 people. In other words, the Soviet Union has lost in men several times more than Britain and the United States together.
One can ask therefore, what can be surprising in the fact that the Soviet Union, in a desire to ensure its security for the future, tries to achieve that these countries should have governments whose relations to the Soviet Union are loyal? How can one, without having lost one's reason, qualify these peaceful aspirations of the Soviet Union as "expansionist tendencies" of our Government?. . .
Mr. Churchill wanders around the truth when he speaks of the growth of the influence of the Communist parties in Eastern Europe.... The growth of the influence of communism cannot be considered accidental. It is a normal function. The influence of the Communists grew because during the hard years of the mastery of fascism in Europe, Communists slowed themselves to be reliable, daring and self-sacrificing fighters against fascist regimes for the liberty of peoples.
Mr. Churchill sometimes recalls in his speeches the common people from small houses, patting them on the shoulder in a lordly manner and pretending to be their friend. But these people are not so simpleminded as it might appear at first sight. Common people, too, have their opinions and their own politics. And they know how to stand up for themselves. It is they, millions of these common people, who voted Mr. Churchill and his party out in England, giving their votes to the Labor party. It is they, millions of these common people, who isolated reactionaries in Europe, collaborators with fascism, and gave preference to Left democratic parties.
Joseph Stalin’s reply to the Iron Curtain speech
1) What do you think Stalin means when he says that Churchill ‘now stands in the firebrand of war’?
2) Stalin compares Churchill to Hitler when he refers to Hitler declaring that ‘only people speaking the German language represent a fully valuable nation’?
3) Do you believe that Stalin’s statement here is justified or inflammatory (likely to cause an angry response from Britain and the US)?
4) What evidence (from the war) does Stalin use to justify his belief that Russia (the USSR) should have the right to ensure its ‘security’ by developing ‘loyal’ relationships with the governments of its neighbouring countries?
5) Why does Stalin accuse Churchill of ‘wandering around the truth’ when discussing the growth of communism in Eastern Europe?
6) What, according to Stalin, did communism offer these people?
7) In the final paragraph Stalin talks about Churchill patting the ‘common people’ on the shoulder in a ‘lordly manner’. What tone and message is intended through his use of these words?
8) In your opinion, how would Stalin’s reply been received by its intended audience (Churchill, the British and other western nations such as the US)?
9) In your opinion, how did these speeches contribute to the developing ‘cold war’ and to what extent would you blame Churchill and/or Stalin?
Matthew Elliott Red Cliffs Secondary College