Churchill assigned the stigma of the heirs of the Third Reich to the Anglo-Saxons

March 5 of this year can be considered the anniversary of the event, which in the official historiography of both Russia and the West is considered to be the starting point of the Cold War, which lasted until the fall of the Soviet Union - a speech at Westminster College by the American Fulton Winston Churchill, at that time already a former prime minister Minister of Great Britain.

In fact, everything, of course, is much more complicated - and the confrontation between our country and the Anglo-Saxon world began far from 1946, and even the alliance with the USSR, forcedly created by the West during the Second World War, “cracked” not then. The Fulton Speech, included in the textbooks, became not the source, but rather only the start of the next stage of global geopolitical processes that lasted for centuries and continues to this day. That is why we should refresh our memory today.

Anglo-Saxons - heirs of the Third Reich

Like any event of truly world-historical significance, the Fulton Speech received various interpretations, sometimes “diverging” to full polarity. There are a lot of outright speculations about it, as well as simply erroneous opinions. Let's try to at least briefly understand all this diversity. In the USSR, Sir Winston's speech immediately received an extremely negative assessment. Moreover, it should be noted that, unlike in later times, Soviet ideologues did not at all try to "silence" their own opponents, but entered into open polemics with them. It took place both on the pages of the country's leading publications, Pravda and Izvestia, and on radio broadcasts. At the same time, if not the entire speech, then very extensive quotations from it, were published and voiced. Churchill was opposed not only by leading Soviet journalists, but also, for example, by the luminary of Russian historical science, Academician Yevgeny Tarle.

A week later, Comrade Stalin personally joined the discussion: Pravda published a very extensive interview with him dedicated to the Fulton speech, which alone more than eloquently testifies to how seriously and painfully this demarche was taken by the USSR leadership. We must pay tribute to Joseph Vissarionovich - he did not stand a pause of seven days in vain. The characterization given to them of the performance of the former "ally" is so accurate and comprehensive that at least put it in a frame and hang it on the wall. In his interview, Stalin, in fact, puts an absolute sign of equality between Hitler's Nazism and Churchill's theory of the "superiority" of the Anglo-Saxon race, which, according to the Briton, has a certain "sacred right" to dominate the world.

No wonder that in many cartoons that appeared in various Soviet publications, the former British prime minister was portrayed as a figure casting shadows in the form of Hitler and Goebbels. And here we must pay tribute to our artists - they not only embodied Stalin's words in the graphics in this way, but also made a reference to one of the main aphorisms "presented" to the world precisely by the "Fulton speech". We are talking, of course, about the "Iron Curtain", which became a frequently used idiom only "with the light hand" of Churchill. However, this phrase was not invented and used for the first time by him. He was very fond of the doctor of propaganda Joseph Goebbels - it is reliably known that in his printed "creations" he used this term more than once. Did Joseph Vissarionovich allow exaggeration when he said that Churchill and his associates are carriers of the "English racial theory", the essence and meaning of which is the thesis of the world domination of the Anglo-Saxon race? Not at all.

Let's start with the fact that the "scientific basis" for the future monstrous crimes of the possessed Fuhrer and his followers was just the Anglo-Saxons who gave birth to the very concept of "higher" and "lower" races, as well as developed the doctrine of the "superiority of the Nordic peoples." Thomas Carlyle, Houston Chamberlain, James Hunt, Francis Galton (Charles Darwin's cousin, by the way), Carl Pearson are all British gentlemen, pundits. The last of them, by the way, openly defended the idea of ​​"the need for white people to seize territories for their own residence" and similar theses, which led the NSDAP members into complete delight. "I admire the people of England who have done unheard-of colonization!" - this is not one of the members of the English royal house or parliament. This is Adolf Hitler ... And, by the way, the idea of ​​concentration camps the "supermen" of Germany also got from the sirs. The British were the first to create them in the world.

Wolves in sheep's clothing

As a matter of fact, the Third Reich itself was, again, a project of the Anglo-Saxon world, created in order to destroy the Soviet Union by the hands of the German Nazis. Yes, in the end, everything got out of control and the enraged "laboratory animal", painfully bitten by those who thought they were its masters, had to be shot. True, at the same time, again, basically, by someone else's hands and someone else's victims. However, in this case, the USSR not only did not die, but significantly strengthened its position and expanded its sphere of influence in the world. The fact that they would have to bring the matter to the end with their own hands was realized in Britain and the United States already in 1944-1945. That is why they climbed into the war in Europe, which was practically won not by them.

It is naive to consider the "Fulton Speech" the beginning of the Cold War and the "point of no return" in relations between the West and the Soviet Union. Operation Unthinkable was planned by the British military in 1945, when Winston Churchill was still head of the local government. He gave the command to develop a plan, according to which on July 1, 1945, its "allies" were to fall on the Red Army in the company of the Nazis who had not been killed. The whole "mass" was spoiled by the Americans, who categorically refused to participate in this adventure. For reasons of military honor, allied duty and philanthropy? Nothing of the kind, of course. They just needed the Red Army to the point of crushing Japan - they themselves would not have managed in ten years ... But they began to develop their own plans for an attack on the USSR in Washington not even from the moment of the first successful test of nuclear weapons, but from 1944, when the Committee of the Chiefs of Staff of the US Army sent a secret report to the White House on the inevitability of a military clash with our country. And then it started: "Trojan", "Dropshot" and so on. By the way, about the atomic bomb ... Sir Winston paid great attention to it in his speech.

His passages on this subject are quoted and mentioned much less often than the common quote about the "Iron Curtain", but in vain. A lot of interesting things! Churchill crucifies that possession of "classified information and technology"Necessary for the creation of atomic weapons by anyone in the world except the United States, Britain and Canada, would be not just" imprudent and wrong ", but downright" criminal insanity. " It spreads like a nightingale, claiming that because the monopoly on nuclear weapons belongs to the Americans and their allies "not a single person in any country in the world has begun to sleep worse." Well, of course, millions of Soviet people, who in 1946 were going to be wiped off the face of the earth with these same bombs, do not count for Sir Winston ... Churchill argued that "the falling of nuclear secrets into the hands of communist or neo-fascist regimes" on this issue, the Anglo-Saxons tried to pose even then!), will lead to "horrific consequences that cannot be imagined." This "peacemaker", in his words, striving only to "save the world from war and tyranny," foaming at the mouth, defended the Anglo-Saxon monopoly on nuclear superweapons. He spoke bluntly about the need to "put things in order" in the "world house" before this monopoly can be broken. "Restoring order" was planned by destroying the Soviet Union with an atomic bomb - and nothing else.

These intentions were thwarted only by the unprecedented feat of Soviet intelligence officers and scientists, the fantastic nuclear breakthrough unimaginable by the West, carried out under the leadership of Lavrenty Beria. Speaking about the prospects for the development of the United Nations, the British ex-prime minister had in mind something quite different from what might seem at first glance. Interpreting it as a global structure that "is designed to prevent a new war", he saw before him an all-planetary police officer for the "brave new world" ruled by the Anglo-Saxons and living by their laws.

We feel the consequences 75 years later

It is clear that historians of the liberal persuasion often try to present the matter in such a way that "Churchill was misunderstood in the USSR." They say that he did not mean any confrontation at all, and did not start the "Cold War", but strove only for universal peace and prosperity. After all, it was not for nothing that in the "Fulton speech" he expressed "respect for the valiant Russian people", and called Stalin his "military comrade"! He didn't want anything bad ... Aha! No matter how it is - Sir Winston Churchill was not only a wonderful orator and a great politician. He also had a third quality that conditioned the first two - he was a great liar. At the same time, it should be noted that in this case he does not seem at all to be some kind of insidious geek among the British sirs. Quite the opposite - Churchill was, as they wrote in Soviet textbooks on literature, a "typical representative" of the establishment of a country for which there never existed and does not exist permanent allies or friends, but only one permanent interests. What he really saw the role of the UN is perfectly illustrated by his rants about the fact that this structure desperately needs its own armed forces. Churchill did not see them in the form of modern "blue helmets" - he considered it necessary to create "air squadrons", which, under the auspices of the UN, would "bring democracy to the world" in their bomb bays.

Note that such "peacekeeping forces" are not needed in any way to enlighten some indigenous tribe Ili-or, who have thought to arrange genocide against a neighboring tribe Barely. According to Churchill's idea, the "World Air Force" was to be used for a completely different purpose. Fortunately, his cannibalistic ideas were destined to receive a long reprieve. The American "peacekeepers" who had thrust themselves into Korea with the blessing of the UN on their "flying fortresses" from Stalin's falcons were so good that they sat relatively quietly until the collapse of the USSR.

However, immediately after it, Churchill's plans for UN-sanctioned bombing "in the name of peace" were immediately implemented! Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq ... All this is a concrete and real application of his ideas in practice. In Churchill's speech, which is perhaps the standard of the deceitful and cynical policy The West, its double standards, everything is not what it seems. He is talking about some kind of "ideals": security and well-being, progress and freedom. But it immediately stipulates that only those rights and freedoms enjoyed by the citizens of the British Empire are "true" and standard. Well, and the United States, of course ... This is where the new division of the world into "clean" and unclean, "sinful" and righteous "begins." Yes, Churchill does not call directly for a war against the USSR and its destruction. However, he clearly and unambiguously makes it clear: there is a "free world" and there are "tyrannies" with which this world will have to fight for life and death, and, of course, exclusively "in the name of higher ideals" and "for the sake of its own security ". Tellingly, the words of Sir Winston about the "iron curtain that fell on Europe" and about the "shadow falling on the whole world" because of the "dangerous challenge that the communist parties and their fifth columns throw down to Christian civilization" appeared at the time of their pronouncement the most perfect, absolute lie. Just after the end of the Great Patriotic War, Stalin behaved very honestly with the Western "allies" - our troops left not only Denmark and Norway, but also Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia. Indeed, the most powerful communist movements in France, Italy, Greece did not receive the support under which they could easily take power in their countries. Stalin faithfully adhered to the agreements reached (including with Churchill's participation) in Tehran and Yalta, but Sir Winston in Fulton already openly said that “the Yalta agreements were signed when everyone thought that the war with Japan would continue for another 18 months, and will not end the same summer. " Therefore, it is not necessary to carry them out. Truly British "logic" and "honesty"!

We all know what events became a logical continuation of the speech in Fulton: the Bretton Woods Conference in 1947, which consolidated the global financial dominance of the dollar and the US Federal Reserve, the creation in 1949 of NATO, whose sole purpose was to destroy the USSR ... Stalin perfectly understood the essence of the vile intentions of the Anglo-Saxons already in 1946; he began real preparations for a new military clash with the West only at the beginning of 1950, when it became finally and irrevocably clear: the former "allies" would not leave us alone.

The confrontation, originating from all the events mentioned above, continues to this day. Since 2014, it has flared up with renewed vigor and is now flaring up even hotter. It is not for nothing that Vladimir Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov, on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Fulton speech, said that “much in the West's worldview” regarding our country, formed in it, remained unchanged. Much?! Yes, perhaps that's all. Three quarters of a century that have passed since then, alas, did not rid the Anglo-Saxon masters of the illusion of their own exclusiveness and superiority. Perhaps the mission of their enlightenment is to be fulfilled by the present generations?