Ruin of Bipolar World Had Been Foretold in 1966 in the Note Addressed to Suslov

On April, 10th presentation of two books of the legendary writer Ernest Henry never published before took place in the Central House of the writer. Now works "Prometheus" and "Stalin's Foreign Policy" were published owing to, first of all, the son of the writer, the journalist of "MK", my comrade Michael Rostovsky. Ernest Henry alias - Simeon Nikolaevich Rostovsky (1904-1990) - was an outstanding representative of Komintern and illegal intelligence officer who worked on territories of the pre-war Europe.

In the middle of 1930 by the time the second secretary of the Soviet embassy in the Great Britain under a pseudonym Ernest Henry published books: "Hitler Over the Europe" and "Hitler Against the USSR". He surprisingly precisely predicted a course of the future war and defeat of hitlerite Germany in the struggle against people of the USSR.

Ernest Henry's life was full of bright events. His first business trip to Berlin coincided with murder of Charles Libkneht and Roses Luxembourg. He passed through prisons in Germany, Poland and Soviet Union where he was arrested already after war as "the enemy of people". But on next day I.V.Stalin died and soon Ernest Henry went at large. Books "Prometheus" and "Stalin's Foreign Policy" is an attempt to understand complex mutual relations of humanistic idea and dictatorship.

Philosophic-publicistic novel "Prometheus" Ernest Henry considered as his best work. This novel-caution about danger of de-humanisation of the society had no chances to be published at that time. As to a note of 1966 "Stalin's Foreign Policy" which was addressed to the main ideologist of the CPSU by the time - M.A.Suslov, the writer who carried out presentation, the playwright and publicist Henry Borovik said: "We have an opportunity to read a confidential note about foreign policy of Stalin. Very interesting, very profound. It illustrates in many respects in new light personality and image of the leader and teacher who proved not for one time that he and communism - are not the twins - brothers. Everything is done with skill, easily and objectively".

We will talk about this very note later. The author convincingly proved in it that I.V.Stalin who physically destroyed all Komintern in reality carried out not internationalist communistic foreign policy. As a matter of fact, he continued a supermajestic line of Russian tsars which once had already led the country to disgraceful participation in the First world war and chaos of 1917, to quit from which became possible only by huge victims owing to a party of bolsheviks and genius of V.I.Lenin.

Criticizing foreign policy of I.V.Stalin, Ernest Henry showed all perniciousness of the bipolar world generated after the Second world war by means of documented arrangement of I.V.Stalin took place during military years with management of Anglo-American allies, first of all, with U.Cherchill. In view of the arrangement which Moscow, London and Washington strictly followed, the opportunity of arrival in 1944-1945 to authority in the countries of the Western Europe of the left forces headed by the communists was missed. First of all it is a question of France. There, at the moment of evacuation by Germans of Paris, the authority in the released territories was taken by forces of Resistance over which representatives FCP dominated. They had at their command hundreds thousand of well armed fighters. At the moment they were no class to declare creation of the government having invited there as younger partners the supporters of the general de Gaulle.

The author results numerous evidences and documents showing that de Gaulle as he confessed later foresaw such succession of events and was internally ready to reconcile to it. Ernest Henry furnished proofs that the management of the USA headed by F.D.Ruzvelt and G.Gopkins in the summer of 1944 also did not object a lot to the creation in France of a left-centrist democratic mode headed by communists. However, U.Cherchill categorically objected but he had no real opportunity to interfere with it.

It is necessary to emphasize that, speaking about potential left turn in France in 1944, it wasn't meant to copy the Soviet model and, especially, to accommodate even in the long term the Soviet army. More likely, it was a question of the event that later received the name "eurocommunism", that is the presence of democratic institutes and removability of authority through elections was meant. On the other hand, certainly, the left social and economic policy and friendship with the native land of socialism - the Soviet Union - was foreseen.

But all those were not bound to come true. I.V.Stalin interefered with it having directively forbade to the French communists to get authority on the basis of the fact that France, according to arrangement, belonged to the Anglo-American sphere of influence. I.V.Stalin gave the instruction to the FCP to recognize leadership of the general de Gaulle, to enter into his provisional government on supporting roles, to disarm and dismiss groups of Resistance.

The Greek communists became the next victim of the arrangement. By the moment of evacuation of hitlerites from Greece practically all territory of the country was supervised by liberation army HLAS conducted by the Communist Party. Only in the port Peraeus Englishmen in whose transport arrived some supporters of the king had time to land. Sure thing, monarchists had no chances. Communists, on the contrary, at any moment could proclaim themselves authority and nobody could have prevented them from it. But they didn't do it, as it was forbidden by Stalin - according to his arrangement with U.Cherchill Greece as well as France got into the Anglo-American sphere of influence.

Under I.V.Stalin's instruction the Greek Communist Party recognized leadership of supporters of king, disarmed HLAS and allowed the British armies to borrow all territory of the country. Everything ended tragically. In 1947 monarchists untied bloody terror against communists, civil war began.

The Communist Party firstly had good chances. But again I.V.Stalin who not only denied the Greek communists assistance but also forced them to lay down arms and to emigrate from the country interfered, in consequence he also subjected their leaders strict repressions, shootings and imprisonment in GULAG.

I.V.Stalin tried to do the same as with Greece with Yugoslavia, screwing I.B.Tito's arms, compelling him to divide authority with king and members of reactionary organization. But I.B.Tito, unlike Greeks and the Frenchmen, refused to carry out, as a matter of fact, capitulatory instructions of the Kremlin and took In hand all completeness of authority in the country. Subsequently it became one of the latent reasons of drama break between Moscow and Belgrad.

Meanwhile, if left forces came to authority in France and on the Balkans, it would fail to affect also Italy where positions of Communist Party were rather strong. Certainly, they were not so strong, as in France, Greece and Yugoslavia, but nevertheless. However the chance to create in the West and the south of the Europe a circuit made of the left democratic modes friendly to the USSR being backed up exclusively on internal national support and not on the Soviet army was missed, it was sacrificed to secret arrangements. The blame for it Ernest Henry totally lays on I.V.Stalin.

Having delivered France, Italy, Greece and having tried to do the same with Yugoslavia, I.V.Stalin at the same time persistently demanded fixing of the western border of the USSR which was established in 1940 and territorial indemnifications to Poland due to Germany. He succeeded in it. However, whether it's good? Whether it is pragmatic? We shall wonder, what from the point of view of history our country received from the fact that Silesia, the Western Pomorze, Danzig and southern part of East Prussia went to Poles? That millions of Germans were deported? History showed that we received nothing except harm and trade union "Solidarity".  

And what did we receive from the retaining in structure of the USSR republics of Baltic, the Western Ukraine and right-bank Moldova? Who destroyed Soviet Union in 45 years after the great victory of Soviet people over Great Patriotic War?

Of course, the main destroyers were in the Kremlin. It were them who under the criminal slogan "let's get rid of parasites" started to give to the decorative Russian Federation real state functions which was impossible to do without dismantled institutes of the USSR. However, it is impossible to reduce the role of the separatists of national suburbs and first of all from the Baltic and Galicia. So, whether it was necessary to cross swords to keep them in the structure of the Soviet Union?  

One more theme of a note of Ernest Henry - cold war. The author convincingly proves that unlike U.Cherchill initially aimed on block military confrontation in the Europe, F.D.Ruzvelt and his colleagues from Democratic party of the USA including G.Trumen at an early stage had other plans.

Firstly, they considered for the USA the Europe, East Asia and Pacific region to be of higher priority.

Secondly, they had excessive interest to use resources and market of the USSR that assumed good relations with the Kremlin.

Thirdly, the Americans aspired to win positions in the countries which were at that moment colonies of the Great Britain. For example, in Palestin where right after wars the USA together with the USSR helped Jews with weapon who led terrorist struggle against Englishmen and Arabs who supported them. The Americans firstly least of all wished to interfere with the Europe. They were quite satisfied with stability in "Old World".

Potential modernist, moderately left modes on the continent did not cause such liberals as early G.Trumen and F.D.Ruzvelt the slightest allergy. In other words, right after the war the USA staked on the multipolar world in which the American pole would be, undoubtedly, the most powerful. But these plans could not be realized. And not only because of F.D.Ruzvelt's mysterious death which resembled murder. But also because of G.Trumen's weakness who was not capable to resist to reactionaries in his own country who were aspired by U.Cherchill's speech in Fulton. I.V.Stalin also contributed a lot to the unleashing of the cold war.

Speaking about it, Ernest Henry allocated three major events. First of all, having delivered to U.Cherchill Greece and nearly having delivered Yugoslavia, I.V.Stalin unexpectedly, to say in modern language, "lash out" at Turkey, categorically demanded to transfer Kars and Эрдаган to the USSR and to place in Dardanelless the Soviet naval base. Turks, having received assurances of support from the Great Britain and the USA, naturally, refused having invited the Anglo-American armies and having placed territory to their military bases. Having seen it I.V.Stalin "drived off" with nothing.  

The second episode was connected with Germany. The USA, despite of objections of Englishmen and supporters of K.Adenauer firstly suggested to lead full demilitarization of this country. But, to their surprise, I.V.Stalin disagreed. On the contrary, soon he made an attempt of blockade of the Western Berlin having provoked the sharpest crisis, which hardly led to the Third world war. As a result, blockade had to be removed and soon the proclaimed Germany was given carte blanche for demilitarisation.

At last, thirdly, initiated by I.V.Stalin and Мао Tszedun war between Democratic People's Republic of Korea and South Korea. It put a fat cross on the Soviet-American post-war cooperation really threatened the world with the nuclear conflict and pushed creation of the military block of NATO. Thus final structure of the bipolar world was formed within the limits of it imperial superstates - the USSR and the USA supported by the Great Britain entered uncompromising cold war with each other, which ended, as it is known, by the ruin of the Soviet Union and in view of present development of situation in the Near and Middle East by the coming international crash of another "Yalta's vulture" - the USA.

In his note to M.A.Suslov Ernest Henry noticed "merits" of diplomacy of I.V.Stalin in the Chinese direction also. He pointed out that in 1930-40 the Kremlin banked in the management of the Communist Party of China on adventurous group of Mao Tszedun having refused to support other forces in the Communist Party of China. After the rout by the Soviet armies Japanese Kvantunsk army in Manchuria all its arms were transferred to People's Liberation Army of China. Civil war began in China. Suddenly the position of the Kremlin changed. I.V.Stalin started to bring pressure on Мао Tszedun forcing him to make peace with corrupted mode of generalissimo Chan Kajshi, to enter government headed by Gomindan and disarmed People's Liberation Army of China.

Мао Tszedun having pretended that he is opened to the compromise in practice continued to be at war and finally crushed the army of Gomindan and expelled them to Taiwan. I.V.Stalin, that was seldom, at representative meeting of Communist Parties of the different countries had been compelled to recognize own mistake publicly. After that in the Kremlin's policy there was one more somersault. Mao Tszedun who was called to Moscow was entrusted to supervise communistic movement in all developing countries, advancing as an sample Chinese experience of struggle of "revolutionary country" against "fressed imperialistic town".  

The Soviet Union in this scheme had the role of a military counterbalance to the West on the European continent. They had not waited for long for the result. Not paying attention to the local conditions, on a command from the outside not strong Communist Parties of India, Indonesia and other young countries of Asia arranged mutinies against rather popular in the countries G.Nehru, Sukarno and other leaders. These mutinies were severely suppressed and relations of the USSR with the future leaders of Movement of non-alignment appeared to be spoiled for a decade.

As to China, strengthening there of the authority of Mao already in 1960th years led to sharp confrontation between Pekin and Moscow. Actual alliance of the Peoples Republic of China with the USA and the NATO, stipulated by R.Nikson, G.Kissindzher and Мао in the beginning of 1970th years and received logic end by efforts of Z.Bzhezinsky and Dan Sjaopin in the beginning of 1980, after input of the Soviet army to Afghanistan became natural result.

The history showed that the USSR didn't sustain opposition simultaneously with the West, the East and the Muslim South supported both by the USA and China. Today, when dismantle of Yalta system comes to the end there is a crash of hegemony politicies of the USA on Near and Middle East, when such new centers of force as China, India, Brazil quickly rise it is especially important to remember lessons of history. As soon as, it looks like, dismantle of the USSR has not been finished yet.

The pause, given to Russia on a boundary of centuries, comes to an end. Contrary to desire of the Kremlin the country is being involved in new cold war. And in fact V.V.Putin is far not I.V.Stalin who, despite of all his mistakes and crimes convincingly opened by Ernest Henry, nevertheless was great leader of the great country which no longer exists.

Send by mail

Print