Stalin compares Churchill to Hitler

(The following appeared in the March 14, 1946, edition of Pravda and is translated from the Russian:)

Recently one of Pravda's correspondents turned to Comrade Stalin, asking for an explanation of a series of questions regarding Mr. Churchill's speech. Comrade Stalin had given respective explanations, which we publish below in form of the answers to the correspondent's questions.

Question: How do you assess the recent speech of Mr. Churchill, which he gave in the United States of America?

Answer: My assessment is, it is a dangerous act, calculated to breed strife between allied countries and make their cooperation more difficult.

Question: Could Mr. Churchill's speech be considered as a harm to the progress of peace and security?

Answer: Absolutely, yes. As a matter of fact Mr. Churchill is standing now in the position of a warmonger. And here Mr. Churchill is not alone -- he has many friends not only in England but also in the United States. It ought to be mentioned that in this matter Mr. Churchill and his friends strikingly resemble Hitler and his friends. Hitler started the process of unleashing war from the proclamation of a racist theory, according to which only the German-speaking people are a worthy nation. Mr. Churchill is starting his process of unleashing war also from a racist theory, stating that only the English-speaking countries are worthy nations, destined to manage the fate of the world. German racist theory led Hitler and his friends to the conclusion that Germans, as the only worthy nation, should rule the other nations. English racist theory leads Mr. Churchill and his friends into the following conclusion: that English-speaking countries, as the only worthy nations, should govern the other nations of the world.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Churchill and his friends in England and in the United States are presenting the non-English-speaking nations with something like an ultimatum: either voluntarily agree to our rule, and everything will be all right, or a war is unavoidable.

But during five years of difficult war nations shed blood for the sake of freedom and independence of their respective countries, and not for the sake of replacing the tyranny of people like Hitler for the tyranny of those like Churchill. Therefore, by all probability, nations which do not speak English, and yet comprise the majority of the world's population, will not conform to the new slavery.

The tragedy of Mr. Churchill is that he, as a deep-rooted Tory, can not accept this simple and clear truth.

Undoubtedly, Mr. Churchill's aim is war, a war with the U.S.S.R. It is also clear that such a goal of Mr. Churchill's is incompatible with the present alliance treaty between England and the U.S.S.R. However, Mr. Churchill, in order to misguide the readers, has mentioned in between that the term of the Soviet-English Treaty of Mutual Aid and Cooperation could be extended up to 50 years. But how do we combine such a statement of Mr. Churchill with his aim to wage war with the U.S.S.R., with his prophecy of war against the U.S.S.R.? It is clear, that those things could not coexist. And if Mr. Churchill is simultaneously calling for war against the Soviet Union and mentioning the extension of the Soviet-English treaty for up to 50 years, it means that he is considering this treaty as a piece of paper, needed only as a cover to mask his anti-Soviet position.

Therefore, the false announcements of Mr. Churchill and his friends in England about extension of the English-Soviet treaty for up to 50 years, and more, could not be taken seriously. Extension of the agreement has no point when one of the sides is violating the treaty and transforming it into only a piece of paper.

Question: How do you assess the part of Mr. Churchill's speech where he attacks the democratic governments of our neighboring European countries and where he criticizes good neighborly interrelations established between those countries and the Soviet Union?

Answer: This part of Mr. Churchill's speech represents a blend of elements of defamation and elements of rudeness and tactlessness.

Mr. Churchill states that "Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest, Sophia, all those renowned cities and inhabitants of respective regions are in a Soviet zone and all submit in one way or another not only to the Soviet influence, but also in large degree to the growing control of Moscow." Mr. Churchill is qualifying all that as the boundless "expansionist tendencies" of the Soviet Union.

There is no need for any special effort to show that Mr. Churchill is rudely slandering Moscow and the above-mentioned countries neighboring the U.S.S.R.

First, it is particularly absurd to talk about the exclusive control of the Soviet Union in Vienna and Berlin, where the Allied Control Councils exist and whose members represent four powers, and where the Soviet Union has only 1/4 of the votes. Occasionally people cannot resist slander, but one must know where to stop.

Secondly, the following matters shall not be forgotten. The Germans carried out the invasion into U.S.S.R. through Finland, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary. Germans were able to carry out the invasion through those countries because at the time, there existed regimes hostile to the Soviet Union. As a result of the German invasion, the Soviet Union irrevocably lost about 7 million people during the conduct of war, German occupation, and due to driving away people for servitude labor. In other words, the Soviet Union lost several times more people than England and United States combined. It is possible that in some places, some are inclined to forget the colossal sacrifices of the Soviet Nation, which ensured the liberation of Europe from Hitler's regime.

But the Soviet Union can not forget the sacrifice. Let the question be asked: Is it odd that the Soviet Union, wishing to ensure its safety, in the future works toward having in those countries' governments loyal to the Soviet Union?

How could one, in his right mind, qualify those peaceful measures of the Soviet Union as expansionist tendencies of our country? Further Mr. Churchill states that the Polish government, being under Russia's rule, was encouraged to greatly and unfairly encroach upon Germany. Here, every single word is rude, offensive slander. Contemporary, democratic Poland is ruled by outstanding people. By their actions they proved their ability to defend the interests and dignity of their Motherland, which their predecessors were unable to do. On what basis does Mr. Churchill state that the government of contemporary Poland has allowed their country to be supervised by members of any given foreign regime? Are Mr. Churchill's words not slanderous here because he is attempting to breed strife between Poland and the Soviet Union?

Mr. Churchill is unhappy, because Poland had turned its policy to the direction of friendship and alliance with the Soviet Union. In the past the relationship between Poland and the U.S.S.R. was marked by elements of conflict and hostility. This situation gave statesmen such as Mr. Churchill the opportunity to play on those feelings of animosity, to take up Poland in hand, pretending to defend it from the Russians, to intimidate Russia by the prospect of war between her and Poland, and to secure for themselves the status of arbiters. But those times have past. The place of hostility between Russia and Poland is now occupied by friendship, and Poland, the contemporary, democratic Poland, does not wish to be a ball in the game played by foreigners. I think this particular circumstance irritates Mr. Churchill and pushes him to rude, untactful escapades against Poland. Is it not the case that he simply is not allowed to play at the expense of others?

As to Churchill's attacks against U.S.S.R. in spite of the expansion of Poland's Western borders with the territories occupied by Germans in the past, here I think he is clearly trying to confuse us. It is known that the resolution regarding Poland's borders was accepted during the three countries' conference in Berlin based on Poland's needs. The Soviet Union repeatedly announced that it counts Poland's needs as fair and just. It is very likely that Mr. Churchill is unhappy with this solution. But why does Mr. Churchill, who uses all his cards in his attack against the Russian position on this matter, hide from his readers the fact that this arrangement was unanimously agreed upon during the Berlin conference, that it was voted upon not only by the Russians but also by English and Americans? Why does Mr. Churchill feel that it is necessary to mislead the people?

Mr. Churchill further states that "communist parties, which used to have tiny minorities in all Eastern European countries, have become an exclusive power, much more superior than the number of their members, and rush to establish totalitarian control; and military rule in almost all those countries tends to prevail; with the exception of Czechoslovakia, there is no genuine democracy whatsoever."

It is known that right now England is ruled by only one party, the Labour Party, and opposition parties have no right to take part in England's government. This Mr. Churchill calls true democracy. In Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Hungary, the power is in the hands of a block that is comprised of four to six parties -- and opposition, if only it appears more or less loyal, has a secured part in government. This Mr. Churchill calls totalitarianism, tyranny, police state. Why? On what basis? Do not expect Mr. Churchill to answer. Mr. Churchill does not understand what a silly position he put himself in with his loud speeches about totalitarianism, tyranny, and police states.

Mr. Churchill would like to see Poland ruled by Sosnkowski and Anders, Yugoslavia by Michajlovic and Pavelic, Romania by Prince Stirbey and Radetzky, and Hungary and Austria by some king from the house of Habsburg, and so on. Mr. Churchill wants us to believe that those gentlemen with fascist leanings are able to secure "true democracy." This is Mr. Churchill's way of "democracy."

Mr. Churchill is close to the truth when he speaks about the growing influence of communist parties in Eastern Europe. But it shall be mentioned that he is not exactly correct. Influence of communist parties grew not only in Eastern Europe but almost in all European countries, where fascism once ruled (Italy, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine), or where the German, Italian or Hungarian occupation took place (France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece, Soviet Union, etc.)

The growing influence of communists shall not be taken as a coincidence. It represents a fully normal phenomenon. Influence of the communists grows because during the hard years of fascist rule in Europe, communists displayed themselves as dependable, brave, self-sacrificing fighters against the fascist regime, and for freedom of nations. Mr. Churchill sometimes mentions in his speeches about "common people from simple houses" brotherly patting them on their shoulders and pretending to be one of them.

But those people are not that simple as first impressions suggest. They, the "common people," have their needs, their politics, and they know how to stand for their interests. It was they, the millions of "common people" in England, who balloted out Mr. Churchill and his party giving their votes to the Laborites. It was they, the millions of "common people," who isolated the reactionaries, the supporters of cooperation with fascism, and preferred leftist, democratic parties in Europe. It was they, the millions of "common people," who tested the communists in flames of war and resistance against fascism and concluded that communists fully deserve the trust of the nation. This is how the influence of communists in Europe has grown. This is the rule of historic development.

Of course, Mr. Churchill does not like this kind of development, and he sounds the alarm, appealing to the use of power. But he also did not like the emergence of the Soviet regime in Russia after the First World War. Then he also sounded the alarm and organized the campaign of 14 states against Russia, trying to make true his goal of turning back the wheel of history. But history proved to be stronger than Churchill's intervention; and quixotic attempts of Churchill led to the point where he had experienced full defeat. I don't know if after the Second World War Mr. Churchill and his friends will succeed with the new campaign against "Eastern Europe," but even if they succeed -- which is not very likely, because millions of "common people" are on guard for the cause of peace -- it can surely be said that they also will be beaten as they were beaten 26 years ago.