The mention of the meeting of the leaders of the "Big Three" on the land of Crimea, which last 75 years passed last week, has not recently left the world media and is increasingly mentioned not only by historians, but also by geopolitical experts. Moreover, this is done in completely different contexts - someone is trying to accuse Russia of wanting to "break" or "revise" the "Yalta" (or "Potsdam") system of world order established by the great powers after the Second World War, someone, on the contrary, mentions about the words of Vladimir Putin, in which there is a call for dialogue addressed to the leaders of leading states and sees in him the desire to "arrange a new Yalta" ...
Before sorting out who is right and who is cunning these days, it is necessary to begin to understand what the Yalta Summit of 1945 was like, what it gave to countries whose leaders participated in it and the whole world as a whole, and what could had to give ideally.
The most honest meeting
For a better understanding of the issue, I venture to recall the well-known: the Yalta Conference was the second of three meetings of the leaders of the USSR, Great Britain and the USA. The first took place on November 28, 1943 in Tehran and lasted only 4 days, in Yalta, the heads of state met on February 4, 1945 and talked for 8 days. The Potsdam Conference began on July 17, 1945 and was the longest - 17 days. But the Big Three was no longer the same: only Stalin always remained at his post. Franklin Delano Roosevelt survived Yalta for some two months and instead of him in the Potsdam of the USA he was already represented by Harry Truman - a completely different person and politician than his predecessor. Even Churchill, who seemed eternal, was forced to leave the victorious negotiations that were taking place on the ruins of the Third Reich, giving way to the leader of the Labor Party who won the next election, Clement Attlee, at their table. And in everything else, all three meetings differed from one another in the most dramatic way. In Tehran, the USSR was interested in opening a "second front", and the same Sir Winston, in the best traditions of crafty British diplomacy, tried to wag and haggle so that Joseph Vissarionovich almost sent the “allies” to hell. It is extremely interesting how the history of the war and the fate of the post-war world would have developed if the words of the Supreme had been thrown to Molotov and Voroshilov: “We won’t agree on anything here! It’s time, perhaps, to go home - there’s a lot to do at the front! ”, Were the last to be heard by Churchill and Roosevelt? However, we will not try to build such "virtuality" now - this is a separate issue. We only mention that, imbued with Stalin's unshakable determination to resolve real issues, rather than engage in boltology, the Anglo-Saxons quickly agreed to join the war.
Moreover, they undertook to do this there and when the head of the USSR demanded it. Well, in the end they failed, of course - but could it have been otherwise? Those who are trying to present the summits of the "Big Three" in the form of such "meetings of military comrades-in-arms", in which the true, if not friends, then at least the allies of our country, either lie themselves or repeat someone else's lies, more or less in good faith erring at the same time. If London and Washington really were eager to help the Soviet people in the fight against an unprecedented disaster that fell upon them, such meetings (no matter where) should have taken place in 1941. In 1942 - the maximum. It was then that the second front, which would allow delaying the Hitler divisions rushing towards Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, was truly needed as air. But none of this happened, because it could not be in principle. Following the path of restoring historical truth and justice, which is so much talked about in the Kremlin today, we are obliged to admit: the lack of real help and support from the USSR (ridiculous "land-lease", excuse me, completely does not count!) From the "allies" The initial, most difficult and dramatic stage of the Great Patriotic War was caused not by “objective reasons” and “difficulties”, but by the most elementary unwillingness to render it! The British and Americans, who stood at the origins of the creation of the Third Reich, the revival of the industrial, financial and military power of Germany, set a clear and clear goal - the destruction of the Soviet Union by its hands. Later, in 1940, when Hitler, having mixed the cards, turned the Wehrmacht's bayonets to the West and went against his creators, they were afraid. But the plans have not changed!
The operation “Barbarossa”, which began on June 22, 1941, not only allowed the United States and Britain to “take a breath” - this, in fact, was exactly what they were counting on. It’s just that everything again went completely wrong according to plan - these inexplicable Russians managed to cope with the Nazi armada, under which Europe lay down, raising its paws without much resistance. The Tehran meeting took place, I recall, after Stalingrad and the Battle of Kursk, that is, at that moment when the military victory of the USSR was no longer subject to the slightest doubt. And Stalin could well afford the demarches, the meaning of which was a warning: we will deal with Hitler, but only then - do not blame me, we won’t ask your opinion about anything. It was a clear understanding of this that made the US president pull the British prime minister, abandon the initial plans for an attack on the Balkans and agree to land in Normandy, as required by the Supreme. And where to go ?! The Yalta meeting in this regard was perhaps the most honest among all - the "big ones" gathered to share the world that they saved from the "brown plague." It was clear that our valiant warriors were saving, but Joseph Vissarionovich understood that he would have to share with London and Washington. And after all, it seems, he sincerely believed in the negotiability of at least those leaders with whom he decided world affairs. As it turned out, I believed in vain ... However, we will not get ahead of ourselves. The Yalta meeting was different from the others in that, on the one hand, real military allies were conducting business between them (the "second front", with grief in half, as we recall, opened on June 6, 1944), and on the other, on it , unlike Potsdam, they have not yet tried to intimidate us with a nuclear bomb. Soviet tanks, by and large, already standing at a direct throw distance to the capital of the Third Reich, greatly contributed to realism in the negotiating positions of Churchill and Roosevelt, who at that time were most worried about whether the unstoppable Red Army would stop after the capture of Berlin, or steel skating rink to the Bay of Biscay, turning Europe into a set of new republics of the USSR?
Real politics: intelligence, vodka, caviar and a bit of diplomacy
Generally speaking, the holding of the Yalta conference should forever remain in history as a model for organizers and participants of such events. It was in this process that Stalin won one victory after another that seemed like brilliant impromptu, but, in fact, were the fruits of the long and painstaking work of many people. We must start from the place of the meeting - the leaders of the West categorically did not want to hold it on the territory of the USSR. What was not offered as an alternative - Malta, Rome, Jerusalem, Egypt, Greece. But Stalin was adamant, knowing full well that the position of the owner of the negotiations would give him enormous advantages in the process of their conduct. And so it turned out later ... Churchill, as always, was capricious for the longest time, grumbling that “there was no worse place to find Yalta, choose at least 10 years”, but, again, he had nowhere to go. The preparation of Yalta through the department of Lavrenty Beria is not only half a thousand of the best superfighters of the NKVD and three times as many "operas" who ensured safety and security, not only 4 regiments of warriors in cornflower-blue caps, through the cordons of which not only Hitler's saboteurs, but a mouse the field would not have slipped through. This is, first of all, the collection of detailed dossiers on all foreign participants of the summit without exception, and not only at the level of their political preferences, attitudes towards the USSR and the like. What is eating? What is drinking? What brand of tobacco does he prefer? The answers to all these questions lay on Lavrenty Pavlovich's desk in top-secret folders long before the meeting began. And it was, as you understand, not at all idle curiosity, but a set of tools for influencing those with whom the world was to be shared.
Roosevelt loves blue? Perfectly! We color the Livadia Palace in the color of heavenly azure. Why Livadian? Yes, because from Yusupovsky, where Stalin stopped, to him 5 kilometers, and from Vorontsovsky, allocated to Churchill's residence - all 15! All negotiations were held in Livadia. Well, it wasn’t forcing the disabled president to go back and forth on bombed roads! Thus, Joseph Vissarionovich always had time to talk privately with the American before the arrival of the ever-bitter British Prime Minister. And by the way, what are we having with Churchill? Did his distant ancestor die near Balaklava during the Crimean War? Excellent! A place to find, organize a trip! Touchingly, it looks like a wide gesture of goodwill. But at the same time it gives another reason to think about whether to fight with the Russians ... Such "little things", some of which are known today, but a much larger number will remain a secret forever and ever, could not be counted. In fact, it was from them that the “foundation” of the geopolitical triumph gained by the USSR in these negotiations was formed. The "drinking" question of Yalta is generally a separate issue. Distinguished guests were already amazed by the "modest breakfast" that awaited them in the tents, which were spread right on the airfield of the Saki airfield, where "board number 1" from Britain and the USA landed. Sturgeon, caviar, salmon ... Well, of course, vodka, cognac and champagne are almost a river. Subsequently, one of the senior members of the US military delegation lamented that “logical and reasonable decisions that meet the vital interests of the United States” were simply impossible to make after “terrible Russian breakfasts” with vodka, champagne and white wine, as well as “unchanged Crimean cognac. " So this is only breakfast! Subsequently, the Englishman Hastings Ismay, who was to become the first Secretary General of NATO, lamented that the Yalta Conference was "as enjoyable in the gastronomic aspect as depressing in the political."
The Anglo-Saxons drank Europe in Yalta, which is already there ... Stalin, in fact, got almost everything he was striving for. The “Wishlist” of the émigré “governments” from Warsaw and Prague about the organization of “democracy” in these countries under the protectorate of the West, which Churchill tried to broadcast, were cut in half and thrown into the trash. Poles' claims to restore the border as of 1939 went exactly there. They slaughtered their fellow lands - but exclusively at the expense of Germany. And Western Ukraine and Belarus remained for the USSR. By the way, here is an extremely burning question: why should the current Polish politicians who come from hatred, should they mention the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, make no sound about the leaders of the United States and Britain who have legalized such a position in Yalta ?! It should be noted that the cunning Churchill, who had already made a fuss in advance before Yalta to come to Moscow to “rub” with “Uncle Joe” without any upstarts from the former colonies, was subsequently very firmly “moved” by Stalin in his demands. If you believe in the existence of the so-called “agreement on interest”, supposedly whipped up by the leaders during this visit (and why not believe the memoirs of Sir Winston himself?), The USSR should have allocated to the allies a “share of influence” in Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Yugoslavia. And in the last two - in the proportion of 50:50. So what? Then they “influenced” much there? Unless the British with the Americans, the British and the Supreme, begged for the same. And besides, they made sure that France was also accepted into the club of the “winners of Nazism”, which, there, in all honesty, had no place at all. They made a promise from Stalin to declare war on the Japanese - yes. So, in return, he demanded the return of all territories incompetently profaned by Nicholas II - from the Kuril Islands to Port Arthur!
The Yalta Conference clearly became a victory for the Soviet Union and its great Leader. Alas, Joseph Vissarionovich was still mistaken in the degree of readiness to fulfill his promises made there, of those who whipped the brandy, having in their thoughts not at all friendly intentions towards the owners. The creation of the United Nations, the refusal to further advance the Red Army across Europe, as well as to support the most powerful communist movements in the same Greece and France - all these were gestures of goodwill, peace and respect for the allies from Stalin. And what did they answer? Just the day after the conference, at which, among other things, the occupation zones of Germany were determined, the air armada of the USA and Britain began to wipe Dresden and other German cities off the face of the earth just in the future zone of responsibility of the USSR. It is clear that Russian factories and factories should not get Russian ... Then there was the Manhattan Project, nuclear "mushrooms" over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Churchill's Fulton speech, the creation of NATO. Neither the Americans nor the British were absolutely going to adhere to those agreements on mutual respect and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, under which they signed in Yalta, in Potsdam, and in creating the UN. Reproaching Russia today for “attempts to dismantle the Yalta system” and “redrawing the post-war world order”, Western politicians lie like they breathe. From that system, which was laid in the Livadia Palace, in fact, so long ago nothing was left. They themselves broke it - creating NATO, and then stubbornly pushing its borders to the East, destroying the USSR, bombing Yugoslavia. Our country is just trying to save the remnants of the structure of the world in which conflicts and claims should have been resolved in the halls of the UN, and not on the battlefield.
Is the world waiting for a new Yalta? Who knows ... Crimean palaces are still beautiful, and we are not impoverished with cognac. But will there be leaders in the West who are ready to speak with us on equal terms before our tank corps stand at their capitals?