Churchill's Speech in Fulton and Ukrainians’ Reaction to It
On March 5, 1946, in the American city of Fulton, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Winston Churchill delivered a historic speech in which he declared the appearance of the “iron curtain”, the current challenges and threats to the democratic world from the “communist russia” that arose after the end of the Second World War, and the need to guarantee the security of mankind, prevent new wars and put an end to tyranny. Immediately, a “group of Ukrainian politicians” published a “Response to Mr. Churchill”, a copy of which is kept in the archives of the Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine. The provisions set forth in this address are extremely relevant today.
This document (translated into russian) is kept in the case where materials concerning the Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council (UHVR) were accumulated. Therefore, it is likely that some of its authors were the leading figures of this movement, which was formed at the end of the Second World War on the initiative of the OUN and the UPA, and declared itself the supreme body of the Ukrainian people in its revolutionary liberation struggle.
“It is quite clear”, the address reads, “that the vast majority of the population of the Soviet Union, very dissatisfied with the soviet authorities, especially we, Ukrainians, and other nations, enslaved nationally and socially by the Moscow-Bolshevik dictatorial totalitarian regime, gladly perceived Mr. Churchill's speech, since it is obvious from his speech and from the political situation around it, that in the cultural world they learn and are increasingly aware of Bolshevik politics”.
The authors point out that they could add a lot to the theses expressed in the speech about the past conquest policy of soviet russia, its enslavement of peoples and what it prepares for other peoples in the future.
“All the preparations, all the economy, politics and military preparations of the Soviet Union are directed only in the direction of expanding its dominance to other nations and to the whole world”, the text stresses. “These preparations are so extensive, comprehensive and so intense that they create for the near future for the rest of the world the greatest and most immediate threat, since there will be no forces in the whole world that could immediately help to avoid this danger”.
It goes on to say that “having total, unrestricted power over vast territories and over hundreds of millions of people, slaves of total power”, the Kremlin rulers can better prepare for the upcoming war, squeeze out of the country all means for their military machine. “The whole powerful apparatus of Soviet state propaganda, – it is noted, – is already mobilizing huge forces of blind fanatical hatred towards its future opponents”.
Speaking about the reasons for the Bolshevik influence in the world, the authors of the address at the same time mention that “Mr. Churchill gave an answer to this, but we cannot help expressing our reservations and doubts about the correctness of the recipe he offers”.
At this, they emphasize the following: “For the sake of fleeting diplomatic benefits, politicians and diplomats have closed the true face of the Soviet Union to the peoples of the world. Now they begin to reap the fruits of this. Today they are already complaining, and tomorrow they will cry. This error will make itself felt if it is not corrected in time”.
“Here, in Ukraine”, the authors of the address point out, “for several years now there has been a difficult tense struggle of the whole people against moscow-bolshevik slavery and tyranny. All our nation is fighting with great courage against utterly alien, tyrannical domination for freedom and independence. In recent years, this struggle has acquired an extremely wide scope and turned into a real war. Similarly, the Baltic states, forcibly and artificially invaded by Moscow, abandoned by the rest of the world, are fighting for their liberation”.
According to Ukrainian politicians, it is necessary to open the world community's eyes to the policy of the Bolsheviks, to stop resorting to concessions, compromises and flirting with them, trying to avoid conflicts. “It is not enough just to complain about the growth of subversive work and the influence of moscow's bolshevism in the world”, they say. – “It is necessary first of all to eliminate everything that is the reason for the growth of this danger. It is necessary to change first of all the policies and tactics in the main world issues of responsible leaders, who, with their previous weak, precarious, docile policies, created an opportunity for the bolsheviks to expand their power and influence on other nations... And it is necessary to act actively to completely liquidate the very source of this danger, to liquidate the kingdom of moscow-bolshevik tyranny”.
The danger of bolshevism, as noted in the address, is much greater for the whole world and will come much sooner than Mr. Churchill even thinks. “It is possible that no one in the world who has not lived long in bolshevik reality, imagines neither its size nor its terrible character. Those who want to know the true face of bolshevism – let them ask Ukrainians who have lived for almost 30 years under soviet rule. But even what Mr. Churchill said in his speech is enough to raise the alarm in the world and encourage it to find a way out of this situation”.
The authors of the address point out that Churchill correctly asked the question, but did not give an answer on how to get out of the situation when the bolshevik danger is constantly growing, he just called for the unification of the efforts of England and the United States, especially in the military sphere. At the same time, they declare that “there must be a repulse to the offensive of bolshevism and preparations for beating it back on a global scale, among all the peoples of the world. This applies, first of all, to the peoples enslaved by soviet russia, because the strength or weakness of the bolsheviks in the upcoming decisive world reprisal, which no one will be able to avoid will depend on their attitude”.
According to Ukrainian politicians, russia became powerful and began to threaten the rest of Europe only after it conquered Ukraine. And it will cease to be a dangerous aggressor when it is deprived of dominance over Ukraine and other peoples of the Black Sea and Baltic Sea regions.
In conclusion, the authors point out that in the fight against bolshevik russia, Ukraine can serve as an example for other nations, because it has constantly been waging a political and armed struggle for its freedom and independence. “There are not many nations in the world”, they emphasize, “who would shed as much blood for their independence and suffer as many sacrifices as Ukraine has incurred and how many sacrifices our homeland suffers to this day”.
After expressing their attitude to Churchill's speech, comments and suggestions, Ukrainian politicians draw the following conclusions:
“Simultaneous knowing Bolshevik reality,... realizing the causes and failures of all previous major campaigns against russia dictate to us the criticisms made above that liquidation of the bolshevik danger should be associated with liquidation of the russian empire by dividing it into its constituent national parts.
Such a policy, which is based on the foundations of the Atlantic Charter of Peoples, would cause in the coming war against bolshevik russia the release of the powerful national energy of the peoples enslaved by this empire and make possible a joint victory in this war, which under a different policy would be doubtful.
The wisdom of the age-old English political art, which until now was a capability of attracting other peoples to its side, could play a great, even decisive role in struggle against bolshevism, if English politics decides on just such a line – to insist not on preserving the russian empire, but on replacing it with a system of free national peoples of Eastern Europe.
This would also give England and America enormous moral capital – affirming the principles of the Atlantic Charter of Peoples”.
Finally, the authors of the address point out that they wrote it on behalf of numerous like-minded people who got acquainted with Churchill's speech and distributed it by printed means of many underground publications throughout Ukraine.