Interview with “Pravda” Correspondent
On Churchill’s Speech at Fulton
March 13, 1946
The other day a “Pravda” correspondent asked Comrade Stalin to clarify
a number of questions connected with Mr. Churchill’s speech. Below are
given Comrade Stalin’s replies to the questions put by the
Question: How do you appraise the latest speech Mr. Churchill delivered in the United States of America?
Answer: I appraise it as a dangerous act calculated to sow the
seeds of discord between the Allied States and hamper their
Question: Can Mr. Churchill’s speech be regarded as harmful to the cause of peace and security?
Answer: Unquestionably, yes. As a matter of fact, Mr.
Churchill's position is now that of the incendiaries of war. And Mr.
Churchill is not alone in this – he has friends not only in England but
in the United States of America as well.
It should be noted that in this respect Mr. Churchill and his friends
strikingly resemble Hitler and his friends. Hitler set out to unleash
war by proclaiming the race theory, declaring that the German-speaking
people constituted a superior nation. Mr. Churchill sets out to unleash
war also with a race theory, by asserting that the English-speaking
nations are superior nations called upon to decide the destinies of the
entire world. The German race theory led Hitler and his friends to the
conclusion that the Germans as the only superior nation must dominate
other nations. The English race theory leads Mr. Churchill and his
friends to the conclusion that the English-speaking nations, as the
only superior nations, must dominate the other nations of the world.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Churchill and his friends in England and the
U.S.A. are presenting something in the nature of an ultimatum to
nations which do not speak English: recognize our domination
voluntarily, and then everything will be in order – otherwise war is
But the nations shed their blood during five years of fierce war for
the sake of the freedom and independence of their countries, and not
for the sake of replacing the domination of the Hitlers by the
domination of the Churchills. Therefore, it is quite probable that the
nations which do not speak English and at the same time constitute the
vast majority of the world's population, will not agree to submit to
the new slavery.
Mr. Churchill’s tragedy is that he, as an inveterate Tory, does not understand this simple and obvious truth.
Undoubtedly, Mr. Churchill’s line is that of war, a call to war against
the U.S.S.R. It is also clear that this line of Mr. Churchill’s is
incompatible with the existing treaty of alliance between Britain and
the U.S.S.R. True, in order to confuse the readers, Mr. Churchill
states in passing that the term of the Soviet-British treaty of mutual
assistance and cooperation could perfectly well be extended to fifty
years. But how can such a statement by Mr. Churchill be reconciled with
his line of war against the U.S.S.R., with his preaching of war against
the U.S.S.R.? Clearly these things cannot be reconciled by any means.
And if Mr. Churchill, who is calling for war against the Soviet Union,
at the same time believes it possible to extend the term of the
Anglo-Soviet treaty to fifty years, that means that he regards this
treaty as a mere scrap of paper which he needs only to cover up and
camouflage his anti-Soviet line. Therefore we cannot treat seriously
the hypocritical statement of Mr. Churchill’s friends in England
concerning the extension of the term of the Soviet-British treaty to
fifty years or more. The extension of the term of the treaty is
meaningless if one of the parties violates the treaty and turns it into
a mere scram of paper.
Question: How do you appraise that part of Mr. Churchill’s
speech in which he attacks the democratic systems in the European
states neighbouring with us and in which he criticizes the
good-neighbourly relations established between these states and the
Answer: This part of Mr. Churchill’s speech represents a mixture
of elements of slander and with elements of rudeness and tactlessness.
Mr. Churchill asserts that “Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest,
Belgrade, Bucharest, Sofia – all these famous cities and populations
around them lie within the Soviet sphere and all are subject in one
form or another not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and
increasing measure of control from Moscow.” Mr. Churchill describes all
this as boundless "expansionist tendencies” of the Soviet Union.
No special effort is necessary to prove that in this case Mr. Churchill
is rudely and shamelessly slandering both Moscow and the
above-mentioned states neighbouring with the U.S.S.R.
Firstly, it is utterly absurd to speak of exclusive control of the
U.S.S.R. in Vienna and Berlin, where there are Allied Control Councils
composed of representatives of the four states and where the U.S.S.R.
has only one-fourth of the votes. It does happen that some people
cannot help slandering, but even then there should be a limit.
Secondly, one must not forget the following fact. The Germans invaded
the U.S.S.R. through Finland, Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary. The
Germans were able to effect their invasion by way of these countries
because at that time governments hostile to the Soviet Union existed in
these countries. Owing to the German invasion, the Soviet Union
irrevocably lost in battles with the Germans and also as a result of
German occupation and the driving off of Soviet people to German penal
servitude, some 7,000,000 persons. In other words the Soviet Union lost
several times more people than Britain and the United States of America
taken together. Possibly some quarters are inclined to consign to
oblivion these colossal sacrifices of the Soviet people which secured
the liberation of Europe from the Hitlerite yoke. But the Soviet Union
cannot forget them. The question arises, what can there be surprising
about the fact that the Soviet Union, desiring to insure its security
in the future, seeks to achieve a situation when those countries will
have governments maintaining a friendly attitude towards the Soviet
Union? How can anyone who has not gone mad describe these peaceful
aspirations of the Soviet Union as expansionist tendencies of our
Mr. Churchill further states that "the Russian-dominated Polish
Government has been encouraged to make enormous wrongful inroads upon
Here every word is rude and offensive slander. Present-day democratic
Poland is guided by outstanding men. They have proved by deeds that
they are capable of defending the interests and dignity of their
homeland in a manner of which their predecessors were not capable. What
grounds has Mr. Churchill to assert that the leaders of present-day
Poland can permit the "domination" of representatives of any foreign
states whatever in their country? Is it not because Mr. Churchill
intends to sow the seeds of discord in the relations between Poland and
the Soviet Union that he slanders “the Russians” here?...
Mr. Churchill is displeased with the fact that Poland has effected a
turn in her policy towards friendship and alliance with the U.S.S.R.
There was a time when elements of conflict and contradiction prevailed
in the relations between Poland and the U.S.S.R. That furnished
statesmen of Mr. Churchill's kind with an opportunity to play on these
contradictions, to lay their hands on Poland under the guise of
protecting her from the Russians, to intimidate Russia with the spectre
of war between her and Poland, and to reserve the position of
arbitrators for themselves. But that time is past, for the enmity
between Poland and Russia has yielded place to friendship between them,
while Poland, present-day democratic Poland, does not want to be tossed
around like a ball by foreigners any longer. It seems to me that it is
this very circumstance that irritates Mr. Churchill and impels him to
rude, tactless sallies against Poland. It is no joke: he is not allowed
to play his game at someone else's expense....
As regards Mr. Churchill’s attack on the Soviet Union in connection
with Poland’s extending her western frontier into Polish
territories seized by the Germans in the past, here, it seems to
me, he is obviously sharping. It is well known that the decision on
Poland's western frontier was adopted at the Berlin Conference of the
Three Powers on the basis of Poland’s demands. The Soviet Union has
repeatedly stated that it regards Poland’s demands correct and just. It
is quite probable that Mr. Churchill is displeased with that decision.
But why does Mr. Churchill, while sparing no arrows against the
position of the Russians in this matter, conceal from his readers the
fact that the decision was adopted at the Berlin Conference
unanimously, that not the Russians alone but the British and the
Americans too voted for this decision? Why did Mr. Churchill need to
Mr. Churchill further asserts that "the Communist Parties, which were
previously very small in all these eastern states of Europe, have been
raised to pre-eminence and power far beyond their numbers, and seek
everywhere to obtain totalitarian control. Police governments prevail
in nearly every case, and thus far, except in Czechoslovakia, there is
no true democracy.”
It is well known that in Britain the state is now governed by one
party, the Labour Party, while the opposition parties are devoid of the
right to participate in the government of Britain. This is what Mr.
Churchill calls true democracy. Poland, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria
and Hungary are governed by blocs of several parties – from four to six
parties – while the opposition, if it is more or less loyal, is secured
the right of participating in the government. That is what Mr.
Churchill calls totalitarianism, tyranny, police rule. Why and on what
grounds – do not expect an answer from Mr. Churchill. Mr. Churchill
does not understand in what a ridiculous position he places himself by
his vociferous speeches about totalitarianism, tyranny, police rule.
Mr. Churchill would like Poland to be governed by Sosnkowski and
Anders; Yugoslavia by Mikhailovic and Pavelic; Rumania by Prince
Stirbei and Radescu; Hungary and Austria by some king of the house of
Hapsburg, and so forth. Mr. Churchill wants to convince us that these
gentlemen from the fascist backyard are capable of securing "true
democracy." Such is Mr. Churchill's “democracy.”
Mr. Churchill is wandering about the truth when he speaks of the growth
of the influence of the Communist parties in Eastern Europe. It should
be noted, however, that he is not quite accurate. The influence of the
Communist parties has grown not only in Eastern Europe but in almost
all the countries of Europe where fascism ruled before (Italy, Germany,
Hungary, Bulgaria, Rumania, and Finland), or where German, Italian or
Hungarian occupation took place (France, Belgium, Holland, Norway,
Denmark, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece, the Soviet Union
and so forth).
The growth of the influence of the Communists cannot be regarded as
fortuitous. It is a perfectly legitimate phenomenon. The influence of
the Communists has grown because in the hard years of fascist
domination in Europe, the Communists proved reliable, courageous,
self-sacrificing fighters against the fascist regime, for the freedom
of the peoples. Mr. Churchill sometimes mentions in his speeches "the
simple people of cottages," patting them on the back in a lordly manner
and posing as their friend. But these people are not so simple as they
may seem at first glance. They, these "simple people," have their own
views, their own policy, and they are able to stand up for themselves.
It is they, the millions of these "simple people," who voted down Mr.
Churchill and his party in England by casting their votes for the
Labourites. It is they, the millions of these “simple people,” who
isolated the reactionaries in Europe, the adherents of collaboration
with fascism, and gave preference to the left democratic parties. It is
they, the millions of these “simple people,” who tested the Communists
in the fire of struggle and resistance to fascism and decided that the
Communists fully deserved the people’s trust. That is how the influence
of the Communists has grown in Europe. Such is the law of historical
Naturally, Mr. Churchill does not like such a course of development and
he sounds the alarm, appealing to force. But he similarly did not like
the birth of the Soviet regime in Russia after the First World War.
Then too he sounded the alarm and organised the military campaign of
"14 states" against Russia, setting himself the goal of turning the
wheel of history back. But history proved stronger than Churchillian
intervention, and Mr. Churchill’s quixotic ways brought about his utter
defeat. I do not know whether Mr. Churchill and his friends will
succeed in organizing after the Second World War a new military
campaign against "Eastern Europe." But should they succeed – which is
hardly probable, since millions of "simple people" are guarding the
cause of peace – one can confidently say that they will be beaten just
as they were beaten in the past, twenty-six years ago.
("Soviet Calendar 1917 - 1947")
Click here to return to the Stalin Archive index.