That the agreements reached between the victors of the Second World War were not going to go beyond a mere declaration of intent between two irreconcilable blocs became clear as soon as Joseph Stalin accepted without further ado at the Yalta Conference in 1945 that the countries liberated by the Soviet Union democratic elections would be held.
And so it was that under Soviet tutelage, not only the countries liberated by the Red Army, but also others where their role had been mere support for partisan movements, elected governments that quickly aligned themselves with Moscow. In the same way that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania 'accepted' their conversion into Soviet Socialist Republics after the invasion of Moscow troops in 1940 with the consent of Nazi Germany.
The fact that the Soviet Union did not accept the political unity of Germany or that countries like Yugoslavia or Albania also embraced socialism without being part of that area of direct Soviet influence was the first sound of alarm for the Western allies.
But the fact that Greece and Turkey, on the southern border -and even Italy- also showed signs of being able to become regimes aligned with Moscow in a domino effect already led to the reaction of the United States and the United Kingdom, united in the configuration of a Western bloc that would suppose a democratic containment and with a free market economy to the growing model of the East.
The weapon of war in this incipient Cold War was none other than money. The one that President Harry Truman asked the United States Congress in 1947 to support the pro-Western governments of Greece and Turkey and the one that the United States also injected throughout the continent for its reconstruction in the well-known Marshall Plan a year later. More than 20,000 million dollars.
Although the reconstruction program, implemented from Europe, intended to cover the socialist countries that had initially accepted its inclusion, Moscow's guidelines were unappealable and all of them ended up renouncing aid.
From Europe, what became known as the Truman Doctrine was championed by the British Government. On January 22, 1948, before the House of Commons, the British Foreign Minister, Labor Ernest Bevin, delivered the speech that we offer excerpted condemning the political ambitions of the Soviet Union and calling for greater unity among the countries of Europe Western.
A decade later, Paul-Henri Spaak, one of the architects of the European Union and at the time Secretary General of NATO, pointed to Bevin's speech as the forerunner of both the political and commercial unity of Western Europe and the Alliance. Atlántica, placing it at the level of those of his political rival Winston Churchill and making it clear that political rivalry in a democracy is not contradictory with the defense of the rule of law against totalitarianism.
“I am aware that there is great interest in the House in this debate, which will last for two days. I am also so aware that what I say can be so easily misunderstood in other countries that I propose to be very careful in presenting the Government's position.
”We are, indeed, at a critical moment in the organization of the post-war world, and I know that the decisions we make now will be vital to the future peace of the world. It is the time when decisions must be made now.
”The story begins with a series of conferences that were held during the war and in which many ideas were expressed. In this sense, of the political events that have occurred since then, one of the main issues at that time is related to the future of many European countries.
”The solution that arrived at Yalta was considered by His Majesty's Government to be a sensible compromise between conflicting elements, but there is no doubt that, as it has evolved, it has revealed a policy on the part of the Soviet Union to use all the means at its disposal to gain control in Eastern Europe and, as it now appears, in the West as well.
”It has become quite clear, I think, that the communist process continues relentlessly in every country. We have seen that what has happened in Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, more recently in Romania and, according to the information in our possession, can spread to other places.
”So the problem we are facing is the control of Eastern Europe by Soviet Russia, whose borders have been advancing. Just look at the map to see how Soviet Russia has expanded since the war and now stretches from central Europe to the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin.
“Then we have the big theme of Greece, which is similar to the others that I have mentioned. Let us assume that the Soviet Union can wait, the United States and the United Kingdom get tired and the so-called Government of Rebel Communists be recognized later without further ado. In the end, a communist government would be imposed in Greece that would be incorporated into the Soviet system along with the rest.
”Here, let me say that the position of the Government is quite clear. We expected to be out of Greece. We hoped that after the first elections a government would be formed, that subsequent elections would eventually take place, and that everything would allow the process of democratic development to work.
”But this has not been the case. The state of latent civil war has been perpetuated. Therefore, it is not about what kind of governments are elected in Greece, we are facing a ruthless attempt, sustained over time, to bring that country into the Soviet orbit.
”I would remind the House that less than three years have passed since the end of the war, and I still hope that, with the correct use of power and organization, these difficulties can be overcome. In the meantime, we must face the facts as they are. Our task is not to make spectacular statements, nor to use threats or intimidation, but to proceed quickly and decisively with the steps that we consider necessary to deal with the situation that the world now faces.
”The conception of the unity of Europe and the preservation of Europe as the heart of Western civilization is accepted by the majority of citizens. The importance of this has become increasingly evident, not only for all European nations as a result of the post-war crises that Europe has gone through and is going through, but for the entire world.
”No one disputes the idea of European unity. That's not the problem. The question is whether European unity can be achieved without the domination and control of a great power. That is the problem that must be solved.
”I have tried on more than one occasion to expose, in this House and in international forums, the British policy that has been carefully considered in relation to Europe. This policy has been based on three principles. The first is that no nation should dominate Europe. The second is that the old-fashioned conception of the balance of power as an objective must be discarded. The third is that the cooperation and assistance of the four powers to all the states of Europe must be replaced, to allow them to evolve freely each in their own way.
”Regarding the first principle, I am sure that this House and the world will realize that if a power pursues a policy to try to dominate Europe by any means, direct or indirect - let's be frank - one comes to the conclusion that which will inevitably lead again to another world war and I hope that idea will be discarded by all of us.
”There is another very worrying factor. It evolved greatly under Hitler and Mussolini, and now I'm afraid it has become a very dangerous instrument for Europe: it is what we describe as the police state. We did not imagine that this would be maintained after the war, but it is, and it is exported with ruthless efficiency.
”I must say, while we hear about elections and democracy, that where the police state exists, votes are worth very little. It is true that the votes have not disappeared, but it is the voter himself who disappears and the winning candidate if he dares to have his own opinion.
”After the war, the agreement between the four powers was to close the gap between East and West, and thus avoid the need to crystallize Europe into separate blocs. We have always wanted the broadest conception of Europe, including, of course, Russia. It is not a new idea.
”The idea of a close relationship between Western European countries first arose during the war. Her Majesty's Government at that time indicated to the Soviet Government that it would put the establishment of a world organization first on her list.
"We also indicate that it might be desirable to have defense agreements with Western Europe for the purpose of instituting a common defense policy against the possible resurgence of German aggression, and determining what role each State should play in terms of armaments and the disposition of forces. .
”We indicated that when these matters arose we would keep the Soviet government informed, which we did. In 1945, however, there was much Soviet criticism of the alleged formation of a Western bloc against the Soviet Union, which was false. At that time, we had not even had a meeting with our Western allies to discuss the matter.
”However, this criticism was poured daily on the radio and in Pravda. When I was in Moscow, therefore, in December 1945, and I saw Stalin, I explained to him that the United Kingdom must have security agreements with France and other neighboring countries, just as the Soviet Union had with its neighbors, along who did not object. I said that anything we did would not be directed against the Soviet Union.
”The European recovery proposal was presented in the same spirit, it was offered to all of Europe, including Russia. Therefore, there was no reason to fear that it would be directed against the Soviet Union.
”So clear was it that the program was destined for the whole of Europe that we in Poland know that even the Communist Party was eager to participate. In Hungary, Romania and Czechoslovakia they even announced their intention to accept the invitation. About Yugoslavia and Bulgaria I never had any precise information. Ultimately, all of these states were ordered to abstain. What had happened to his sovereignty? They weren't walking away of their own volition.
“Now we have to face a new situation. In this it is impossible to move as fast as we would like. We are dealing with nations that are free to make their own decisions. It is quite easy to draw up a plan for a unified Western Europe and build neat-looking plans on paper.
”The bottom line is that the free nations of Western Europe must now be closely united, since they have these countries in common. Our sacrifices in war, our hatred of injustice and oppression, our parliamentary democracy, our struggle for economic rights, and our conception and love of freedom are common to all of us. I think the time has come for a consolidation of Western Europe.”
