Winston
Churchill's Iron Curtain Speech: Background
Nine months after Sir Winston Churchill failed to
be reelected as Britain's Prime Minister, Churchill
traveled by train with President Harry Truman to
make a speech. On March 5, 1946, at the request
of Westminster College in the small Missouri town
of Fulton (population of 7,000), Churchill gave
his now famous "Iron Curtain" speech to
a crowd of 40,000. In addition to accepting an honorary
degree from the college, Churchill made one of his
most famous post-war speeches.
In this speech, Churchill gave the very descriptive
phrase that surprised the United States and Britain,
"From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the
Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the
Continent." Before this speech, the U.S. and
Britain had been concerned with their own post-war
economies and had remained extremely grateful for
the Soviet Union's proactive role in ending World
War II. It was Churchill's speech, which he titled
"The Sinews of Peace," that changed the
way the democratic West viewed the Communist East.
Though many people believe
that Churchill coined the phrase "the iron
curtain" during this speech, the term had
actually been used for decades (including in several
earlier letters from Churchill to Truman). Churchill's
use of the phrase gave it wider circulation and
made the phrase popularly recognized as the division
of Europe into East and West.
Many people consider Churchill's
"iron curtain speech" the beginning
of the Cold War.
Text Of The Speech (This audio clip comes
from three different sections of the speech. Audio
portion are in brackets and italicized)
"The Sinews of Peace"
March 5, 1946
Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri
I am glad to come to Westminster College this
afternoon, and am complimented that you should
give me a degree. The name "Westminster"
is somehow familiar to me. I seem to have heard
of it before. Indeed, it was at Westminster that
I received a very large part of my education in
politics, dialectic, rhetoric, and one or two
other things. In fact we have both been educated
at the same, or similar, or, at any rate, kindred
establishments.
It is also an honour, perhaps
almost unique, for a private visitor to be introduced
to an academic audience by the President of the
United States. Amid his heavy burdens, duties,
and responsibilities - unsought but not recoiled
from - the President has travelled a thousand
miles to dignify and magnify our meeting here
to-day and to give me an opportunity of addressing
this kindred nation, as well as my own countrymen
across the ocean, and perhaps some other countries
too. The President has told you that it is his
wish, as I am sure it is yours, that I should
have full liberty to give my true and faithful
counsel in these anxious and baffling times. I
shall certainly avail myself of this freedom,
and feel the more right to do so because any private
ambitions I may have cherished in my younger days
have been satisfied beyond my wildest dreams.
Let me, however, make it clear that I have no
official mission or status of any kind, and that
I speak only for myself. There is nothing here
but what you see.
I can therefore allow my
mind, with the experience of a lifetime, to play
over the problems which beset us on the morrow
of our absolute victory in arms, and to try to
make sure with what strength I have that what
has been gained with so much sacrifice and suffering
shall be preserved for the future glory and safety
of mankind.
The United States stands
at this time at the pinnacle of world power. It
is a solemn moment for the American Democracy.
For with primacy in power is also joined an awe-inspiring
accountability to the future. If you look around
you, you must feel not only the sense of duty
done but also you must feel anxiety lest you fall
below the level of achievement. Opportunity is
here now, clear and shining for both our countries.
To reject it or ignore it or fritter it away will
bring upon us all the long reproaches of the after-time.
It is necessary that constancy of mind, persistency
of purpose, and the grand simplicity of decision
shall guide and rule the conduct of the English-speaking
peoples in peace as they did in war. We must,
and I believe we shall, prove ourselves equal
to this severe requirement.
When American military
men approach some serious situation they are wont
to write at the head of their directive the words
"over-all strategic concept." There
is wisdom in this, as it leads to clarity of thought.
What then is the over-all strategic concept which
we should inscribe today? It is nothing less than
the safety and welfare, the freedom and progress,
of all the homes and families of all the men and
women in all the lands. And here I speak particularly
of the myriad cottage or apartment homes where
the wage-earner strives amid the accidents and
difficulties of life to guard his wife and children
from privation and bring the family up in the
fear of the Lord, or upon ethical conceptions
which often play their potent part.
To give security to these
countless homes, they must be shielded from the
two giant marauders, war and tyranny. We all know
the frightful disturbances in which the ordinary
family is plunged when the curse of war swoops
down upon the bread-winner and those for whom
he works and contrives. The awful ruin of Europe,
with all its vanished glories, and of large parts
of Asia glares us in the eyes. When the designs
of wicked men or the aggressive urge of mighty
States dissolve over large areas the frame of
civilised society, humble folk are confronted
with difficulties with which they cannot cope.
For them all is distorted, all is broken, even
ground to pulp.
When I stand here this
quiet afternoon I shudder to visualise what is
actually happening to millions now and what is
going to happen in this period when famine stalks
the earth. None can compute what has been called
"the unestimated sum of human pain."
Our supreme task and duty is to guard the homes
of the common people from the horrors and miseries
of another war. We are all agreed on that.
Our American military colleagues,
after having proclaimed their "over-all strategic
concept" and computed available resources,
always proceed to the next step - namely, the
method. Here again there is widespread agreement.
A world organisation has already been erected
for the prime purpose of preventing war, UNO,
the successor of the League of Nations, with the
decisive addition of the United States and all
that that means, is already at work. We must make
sure that its work is fruitful, that it is a reality
and not a sham, that it is a force for action,
and not merely a frothing of words, that it is
a true temple of peace in which the shields of
many nations can some day be hung up, and not
merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel. Before we
cast away the solid assurances of national armaments
for self-preservation we must be certain that
our temple is built, not upon shifting sands or
quagmires, but upon the rock. Anyone can see with
his eyes open that our path will be difficult
and also long, but if we persevere together as
we did in the two world wars - though not, alas,
in the interval between them - I cannot doubt
that we shall achieve our common purpose in the
end.
I have, however, a definite
and practical proposal to make for action. Courts
and magistrates may be set up but they cannot
function without sheriffs and constables. The
United Nations Organisation must immediately begin
to be equipped with an international armed force.
In such a matter we can only go step by step,
but we must begin now. I propose that each of
the Powers and States should be invited to delegate
a certain number of air squadrons to the service
of the world organisation. These squadrons would
be trained and prepared in their own countries,
but would move around in rotation from one country
to another. They would wear the uniform of their
own countries but with different badges. They
would not be required to act against their own
nation, but in other respects they would be directed
by the world organisation. This might be started
on a modest scale and would grow as confidence
grew. I wished to see this done after the first
world war, and I devoutly trust it may be done
forthwith.
It would nevertheless be
wrong and imprudent to entrust the secret knowledge
or experience of the atomic bomb, which the United
States, Great Britain, and Canada now share, to
the world organisation, while it is still in its
infancy. It would be criminal madness to cast
it adrift in this still agitated and un-united
world. No one in any country has slept less well
in their beds because this knowledge and the method
and the raw materials to apply it, are at present
largely retained in American hands. I do not believe
we should all have slept so soundly had the positions
been reversed and if some Communist or neo-Fascist
State monopolised for the time being these dread
agencies. The fear of them alone might easily
have been used to enforce totalitarian systems
upon the free democratic world, with consequences
appalling to human imagination. God has willed
that this shall not be and we have at least a
breathing space to set our house in order before
this peril has to be encountered: and even then,
if no effort is spared, we should still possess
so formidable a superiority as to impose effective
deterrents upon its employment, or threat of employment,
by others. Ultimately, when the essential brotherhood
of man is truly embodied and expressed in a world
organisation with all the necessary practical
safeguards to make it effective, these powers
would naturally be confided to that world organisation.
Now I come to the second
danger of these two marauders which threatens
the cottage, the home, and the ordinary people
- namely, tyranny. We cannot be blind to the fact
that the liberties enjoyed by individual citizens
throughout the British Empire are not valid in
a considerable number of countries, some of which
are very powerful. In these States control is
enforced upon the common people by various kinds
of all-embracing police governments. The power
of the State is exercised without restraint, either
by dictators or by compact oligarchies operating
through a privileged party and a political police.
It is not our duty at this time when difficulties
are so numerous to interfere forcibly in the internal
affairs of countries which we have not conquered
in war. But we must never cease to proclaim in
fearless tones the great principles of freedom
and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance
of the English-speaking world and which through
Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus,
trial by jury, and the English common law find
their most famous expression in the American Declaration
of Independence.
All this means that the
people of any country have the right, and should
have the power by constitutional action, by free
unfettered elections, with secret ballot, to choose
or change the character or form of government
under which they dwell; that freedom of speech
and thought should reign; that courts of justice,
independent of the executive, unbiased by any
party, should administer laws which have received
the broad assent of large majorities or are consecrated
by time and custom. Here are the title deeds of
freedom which should lie in every cottage home.
Here is the message of the British and American
peoples to mankind. Let us preach what we practise
- let us practise what we preach.
I have now stated the two
great dangers which menace the homes of the people:
War and Tyranny. I have not yet spoken of poverty
and privation which are in many cases the prevailing
anxiety. But if the dangers of war and tyranny
are removed, there is no doubt that science and
co-operation can bring in the next few years to
the world, certainly in the next few decades newly
taught in the sharpening school of war, an expansion
of material well-being beyond anything that has
yet occurred in human experience. Now, at this
sad and breathless moment, we are plunged in the
hunger and distress which are the aftermath of
our stupendous struggle; but this will pass and
may pass quickly, and there is no reason except
human folly of sub-human crime which should deny
to all the nations the inauguration and enjoyment
of an age of plenty. I have often used words which
I learned fifty years ago from a great Irish-American
orator, a friend of mine, Mr. Bourke Cockran.
"There is enough for all. The earth is a
generous mother; she will provide in plentiful
abundance food for all her children if they will
but cultivate her soil in justice and in peace."
So far I feel that we are in full agreement.
Now, while still pursuing
the method of realising our overall strategic
concept, I come to the crux of what I have travelled
here to say. Neither the sure prevention of war,
nor the continuous rise of world organisation
will be gained without what I have called the
fraternal association of the English-speaking
peoples. This means a special relationship between
the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United
States. This is no time for generalities, and
I will venture to be precise. Fraternal association
requires not only the growing friendship and mutual
understanding between our two vast but kindred
systems of society, but the continuance of the
intimate relationship between our military advisers,
leading to common study of potential dangers,
the similarity of weapons and manuals of instructions,
and to the interchange of officers and cadets
at technical colleges. It should carry with it
the continuance of the present facilities for
mutual security by the joint use of all Naval
and Air Force bases in the possession of either
country all over the world. This would perhaps
double the mobility of the American Navy and Air
Force. It would greatly expand that of the British
Empire Forces and it might well lead, if and as
the world calms down, to important financial savings.
Already we use together a large number of islands;
more may well be entrusted to our joint care in
the near future.
The United States has already
a Permanent Defence Agreement with the Dominion
of Canada, which is so devotedly attached to the
British Commonwealth and Empire. This Agreement
is more effective than many of those which have
often been made under formal alliances. This principle
should be extended to all British Commonwealths
with full reciprocity. Thus, whatever happens,
and thus only, shall we be secure ourselves and
able to work together for the high and simple
causes that are dear to us and bode no ill to
any. Eventually there may come - I feel eventually
there will come - the principle of common citizenship,
but that we may be content to leave to destiny,
whose outstretched arm many of us can already
clearly see.
There is however an important
question we must ask ourselves. Would a special
relationship between the United States and the
British Commonwealth be inconsistent with our
over-riding loyalties to the World Organisation?
I reply that, on the contrary, it is probably
the only means by which that organisation will
achieve its full stature and strength. There are
already the special United States relations with
Canada which I have just mentioned, and there
are the special relations between the United States
and the South American Republics. We British have
our twenty years Treaty of Collaboration and Mutual
Assistance with Soviet Russia. I agree with Mr.
Bevin, the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain,
that it might well be a fifty years Treaty so
far as we are concerned. We aim at nothing but
mutual assistance and collaboration. The British
have an alliance with Portugal unbroken since
1384, and which produced fruitful results at critical
moments in the late war. None of these clash with
the general interest of a world agreement, or
a world organisation; on the contrary they help
it. "In my father's house are many mansions."
Special associations between members of the United
Nations which have no aggressive point against
any other country, which harbour no design incompatible
with the Charter of the United Nations, far from
being harmful, are beneficial and, as I believe,
indispensable.
I spoke earlier of the
Temple of Peace. Workmen from all countries must
build that temple. If two of the workmen know
each other particularly well and are old friends,
if their families are inter-mingled, and if they
have "faith in each other's purpose, hope
in each other's future and charity towards each
other's shortcomings" - to quote some good
words I read here the other day - why cannot they
work together at the common task as friends and
partners? Why cannot they share their tools and
thus increase each other's working powers? Indeed
they must do so or else the temple may not be
built, or, being built, it may collapse, and we
shall all be proved again unteachable and have
to go and try to learn again for a third time
in a school of war, incomparably more rigorous
than that from which we have just been released.
The dark ages may return, the Stone Age may return
on the gleaming wings of science, and what might
now shower immeasurable material blessings upon
mankind, may even bring about its total destruction.
Beware, I say; time may be short. Do not let us
take the course of allowing events to drift along
until it is too late. If there is to be a fraternal
association of the kind I have described, with
all the extra strength and security which both
our countries can derive from it, let us make
sure that that great fact is known to the world,
and that it plays its part in steadying and stabilising
the foundations of peace. There is the path of
wisdom. Prevention is better than cure.
A shadow has fallen upon
the scenes so lately lighted by the Allied victory.
Nobody knows what Soviet Russia and its Communist
international organisation intends to do in the
immediate future, or what are the limits, if any,
to their expansive and proselytising tendencies.
I have a strong admiration and regard for the
valiant Russian people and for my wartime comrade,
Marshal Stalin. There is deep sympathy and goodwill
in Britain - and I doubt not here also - towards
the peoples of all the Russias and a resolve to
persevere through many differences and rebuffs
in establishing lasting friendships. We understand
the Russian need to be secure on her western frontiers
by the removal of all possibility of German aggression.
We welcome Russia to her rightful place among
the leading nations of the world. We welcome her
flag upon the seas. Above all, we welcome constant,
frequent and growing contacts between the Russian
people and our own people on both sides of the
Atlantic. It is my duty however, for I am sure
you would wish me to state the facts as I see
them to you, to place before you certain facts
about the present position in Europe.
[From Stettin in the
Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain
has descended across the Continent. Behind that
line lie all the capitals of the ancient states
of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin,
Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest
and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations
around them lie in what I must call the Soviet
sphere, and all are subject in one form or another,
not only to Soviet influence but to a very high
and, in some cases, increasing measure of control
from Moscow.] Athens alone - Greece with its
immortal glories - is free to decide its future
at an election under British, American and French
observation. The Russian-dominated Polish Government
has been encouraged to make enormous and wrongful
inroads upon Germany, and mass expulsions of millions
of Germans on a scale grievous and undreamed-of
are now taking place. The Communist parties, which
were very small in all these Eastern States of
Europe, have been raised to pre-eminence and power
far beyond their numbers and are seeking everywhere
to obtain totalitarian control. Police governments
are prevailing in nearly every case, and so far,
except in Czechoslovakia, there is no true democracy.
Turkey and Persia are both
profoundly alarmed and disturbed at the claims
which are being made upon them and at the pressure
being exerted by the Moscow Government. An attempt
is being made by the Russians in Berlin to build
up a quasi-Communist party in their zone of Occupied
Germany by showing special favours to groups of
left-wing German leaders. At the end of the fighting
last June, the American and British Armies withdrew
westwards, in accordance with an earlier agreement,
to a depth at some points of 150 miles upon a
front of nearly four hundred miles, in order to
allow our Russian allies to occupy this vast expanse
of territory which the Western Democracies had
conquered.
If now the Soviet Government
tries, by separate action, to build up a pro-Communist
Germany in their areas, this will cause new serious
difficulties in the British and American zones,
and will give the defeated Germans the power of
putting themselves up to auction between the Soviets
and the Western Democracies. Whatever conclusions
may be drawn from these facts - and facts they
are - this is certainly not the Liberated Europe
we fought to build up. Nor is it one which contains
the essentials of permanent peace.
The safety of the world
requires a new unity in Europe, from which no
nation should be permanently outcast. It is from
the quarrels of the strong parent races in Europe
that the world wars we have witnessed, or which
occurred in former times, have sprung. Twice in
our own lifetime we have seen the United States,
against their wishes and their traditions, against
arguments, the force of which it is impossible
not to comprehend, drawn by irresistible forces,
into these wars in time to secure the victory
of the good cause, but only after frightful slaughter
and devastation had occurred. Twice the United
States has had to send several millions of its
young men across the Atlantic to find the war;
but now war can find any nation, wherever it may
dwell between dusk and dawn. Surely we should
work with conscious purpose for a grand pacification
of Europe, within the structure of the United
Nations and in accordance with its Charter. That
I feel is an open cause of policy of very great
importance.
In front of the iron curtain
which lies across Europe are other causes for
anxiety. In Italy the Communist Party is seriously
hampered by having to support the Communist-trained
Marshal Tito's claims to former Italian territory
at the head of the Adriatic. Nevertheless the
future of Italy hangs in the balance. Again one
cannot imagine a regenerated Europe without a
strong France. All my public life I have worked
for a strong France and I never lost faith in
her destiny, even in the darkest hours. I will
not lose faith now. However, in a great number
of countries, far from the Russian frontiers and
throughout the world, Communist fifth columns
are established and work in complete unity and
absolute obedience to the directions they receive
from the Communist centre. Except in the British
Commonwealth and in the United States where Communism
is in its infancy, the Communist parties or fifth
columns constitute a growing challenge and peril
to Christian civilisation. These are sombre facts
for anyone to have to recite on the morrow of
a victory gained by so much splendid comradeship
in arms and in the cause of freedom and democracy;
but we should be most unwise not to face them
squarely while time remains.
The outlook is also anxious
in the Far East and especially in Manchuria. The
Agreement which was made at Yalta, to which I
was a party, was extremely favourable to Soviet
Russia, but it was made at a time when no one
could say that the German war might not extend
all through the summer and autumn of 1945 and
when the Japanese war was expected to last for
a further 18 months from the end of the German
war. In this country you are all so well-informed
about the Far East, and such devoted friends of
China, that I do not need to expatiate on the
situation there.
I have felt bound to portray
the shadow which, alike in the west and in the
east, falls upon the world. I was a high minister
at the time of the Versailles Treaty and a close
friend of Mr. Lloyd-George, who was the head of
the British delegation at Versailles. I did not
myself agree with many things that were done,
but I have a very strong impression in my mind
of that situation, and I find it painful to contrast
it with that which prevails now. In those days
there were high hopes and unbounded confidence
that the wars were over, and that the League of
Nations would become all-powerful. I do not see
or feel that same confidence or even the same
hopes in the haggard world at the present time.
On the other hand I repulse
the idea that a new war is inevitable; still more
that it is imminent. It is because I am sure that
our fortunes are still in our own hands and that
we hold the power to save the future, that I feel
the duty to speak out now that I have the occasion
and the opportunity to do so. I do not believe
that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire
is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion
of their power and doctrines. But what we have
to consider here to-day while time remains, is
the permanent prevention of war and the establishment
of conditions of freedom and democracy as rapidly
as possible in all countries. Our difficulties
and dangers will not be removed by closing our
eyes to them. They will not be removed by mere
waiting to see what happens; nor will they be
removed by a policy of appeasement. What is needed
is a settlement, and the longer this is delayed,
the more difficult it will be and the greater
our dangers will become.
From what I have seen of
our Russian friends and Allies during the war,
I am convinced that there is nothing they admire
so much as strength, and there is nothing for
which they have less respect than for weakness,
especially military weakness. For that reason
the old doctrine of a balance of power is unsound.
We cannot afford, if we can help it, to work on
narrow margins, offering temptations to a trial
of strength. If the Western Democracies stand
together in strict adherence to the principles
of the United Nations Charter, their influence
for furthering those principles will be immense
and no one is likely to molest them. If however
they become divided or falter in their duty and
if these all-important years are allowed to slip
away then indeed catastrophe may overwhelm us
all.
Last time I saw it all
coming and cried aloud to my own fellow-countrymen
and to the world, but no one paid any attention.
Up till the year 1933 or even 1935, Germany might
have been saved from the awful fate which has
overtaken her and we might all have been spared
the miseries Hitler let loose upon mankind. There
never was a war in all history easier to prevent
by timely action than the one which has just desolated
such great areas of the globe. It could have been
prevented in my belief without the firing of a
single shot, and Germany might be powerful, prosperous
and honoured to-day; but no one would listen and
one by one we were all sucked into the awful whirlpool.
We surely must not let that happen again. This
can only be achieved by reaching now, in 1946,
a good understanding on all points with Russia
under the general authority of the United Nations
Organisation and by the maintenance of that good
understanding through many peaceful years, by
the world instrument, supported by the whole strength
of the English-speaking world and all its connections.
There is the solution which I respectfully offer
to you in this Address to which I have given the
title "The Sinews of Peace."
Let no man underrate the
abiding power of the British Empire and Commonwealth.
Because you see the 46 millions in our island
harassed about their food supply, of which they
only grow one half, even in war-time, or because
we have difficulty in restarting our industries
and export trade after six years of passionate
war effort, do not suppose that we shall not come
through these dark years of privation as we have
come through the glorious years of agony, or that
half a century from now, you will not see 70 or
80 millions of Britons spread about the world
and united in defence of our traditions, our way
of life, and of the world causes which you and
we espouse. [If the population of the English-speaking
Commonwealths be added to that of the United States
with all that such co-operation implies in the
air, on the sea, all over the globe] and in
science and in industry, and in moral force, there
will be no quivering, precarious balance of power
to offer its temptation to ambition or adventure.
On the contrary, there will be an overwhelming
assurance of security. If we adhere faithfully
to the Charter of the United Nations and walk
forward in sedate and sober strength seeking no
one's land or treasure, seeking to lay no arbitrary
control upon the thoughts of men; [if all British
moral and material forces and convictions are
joined with your own in fraternal association,
the high-roads of the future will be clear, not
only for us but for all, not only for our time,
but for a century to come.]
|