Struggle in Soviet Russia

War is a disaster, at least for most people, but for a few, especially for a very small number of people, war means opportunity, and it is also an opportunity to get rich and lucky.

With the end of the war, the relationship between the Soviet Union, the United States, Britain and France naturally experienced ups and downs. Various contradictions that were shelved during the war between the four countries have resurfaced, and with the blessing of post-war geopolitics, the multiplier Underneath, there is a more obvious and more intense trend.

Since the successful test explosion of the alliance's first nuclear weapon, the contradiction between the Soviet Union and the United States began to sharpen rapidly. From Europe to the Far East, from Southeast Asia to the Middle East, collisions between the two sides appeared from time to time. Although the intensity was not large, the frequency was Higher and higher.

Slightly different from the previous life, the contradiction between the United Kingdom and the United States is also rapidly becoming clear.

In the UK, Attlee, who became prime minister after defeating Churchill, represented the interests of the British Labour Party, and the Labour Party led by Attlee was able to defeat Churchill to come to power, and still won the election with an overwhelming proportion. The victory is because the universal welfare system promoted by the Labour Party caters to the psychology of British voters. At the same time, it also means that in British society, the left-wing trend of thought is picking up.

Attlee and the Labour Party under his leadership are obviously aware of the current situation of British society. Therefore, their policy line is also moving towards the left. The specific manifestation is the implementation of a series of nationalization policies in internal affairs. Diplomatically, it actively promoted détente with the Soviet Union. In addition, the Attlee government brought Stafford Cripps, a far-left representative of the Labour Party, to the fore, appointed him as chairman of the trade committee, and strengthened trade with the Soviet Union. Cooperation is also a significant signal in this regard.

Stafford Cripps was an interesting man who had a special place in British political circles in the 1940s and 1950s. He is a representative of the far-left forces in the Labour Party, and he is a Marxist himself. In the late 1930s, before the outbreak of World War II, he actively promoted cooperation with the Communist Party in the UK to form the Anti-Fascist People's Front. Most importantly, this man was Churchill's political opponent and an active opponent of Churchill, whose attacks on Churchill had once overwhelmed the latter.

There used to be a little story between Churchill and Stafford Cripps, which is that one time Churchill was at his convenience, and the secretary went to him and said Stafford Cripps came to the door and wanted to immediately Seeing him, Churchill at the time said, "I'm going out and I can't deal with two **** at once." From this little story, we can see how obvious the contradiction between the two is.

All in all, although the British did not change their stance on issues in some regions such as Greece, the overall situation of British-Soviet relations still had some changes during Churchill's party and government. When the Conservative Party is in power, the British will not willingly hand over the status of world leaders to the Americans. Furthermore, in the Middle East, Europe, and India, a series of regions that involve British interests, the British will never make even the slightest concession to the Americans on their own initiative.

One thing that can be confirmed is that the current foreign policy of London is to hope that the Soviet Union and the United States will continue to be entangled. To ensure the realization of a major premise, that is, to exclude the American power from Europe as much as possible, and at the same time, to maintain the leadership of the United Kingdom on the European continent.

So from another perspective, there are two countries that can threaten the status of Britain in continental Europe, one is the Soviet Union and the other is the United States. Then, in the United Kingdom, whether the United States or the Soviet Union should be the primary competitor is this. Question, is there no difference? The answer is, of course, yes, there are differences, and this difference is the difference between Labour and Conservatives in foreign policy.

To sum up, the reason why the Labour Party is willing to improve relations with the Soviet Union is because it believes that the greatest threat to Britain's position on the European continent after the war is actually the Americans. The foreign policy that should be followed within the political scope is the most important foreign policy. As for the Soviets, they also suffered heavy losses in the war. It will take a certain amount of time to recover. Therefore, there is a basis for negotiation between Britain and the Soviet Union. of.

Compared with the Labour Party, the Conservative Party's position is the opposite, not only because of geopolitical considerations, but also because the Conservative Party's anti-Communist stance is exceptionally firm, which is determined by its ideological stance.

As a result, on the issue of dealing with the Soviet Union and the United States, there was no unified opinion in the United Kingdom, and their positions were fluctuating.

Leaving the UK aside, look at France.

As mentioned before, according to the original plan of the Americans, France would not have an independent status after the war, after all, the Vichy government of France surrendered to the Germans, and was fighting for the war throughout the war. The Germans served, it was a servant state of Germany and provided war support to the German fascists. Therefore, according to common sense, France should be divided into three pieces by the Soviet Union, the United States and the United Kingdom, like Austria, and divided and ruled.

But as the leader of Free France, de Gaulle was too shrewd to persuade the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union with his own skills, and finally forced the Americans to make concessions and win independent status for post-war France.

Then again, why did the United States want to cut France into three pieces? Was it just because the French surrendered to Germany? Of course this is not the case. The reason why the Americans tried so hard to cut off France was because after the war, the French were still strong enough. Control European manufacturing barriers.

Yes, even though it was humiliating to say it by surrendering Germany early in the morning, but also because of this, the losses suffered by France throughout the war were not unacceptably large. On the contrary, in the past few years of war, France On the contrary, its industrial and military strength was higher than before the war. When the Germans signed the unconditional surrender, the army controlled by Free France had already exceeded 1.5 million, and there was no shortage of navy and air force. , considering its overall strength, it is not even much weaker than the British.

Because of such strength, the French never thought of bowing their heads to the Americans after the war. Paris's ambition is still to dominate the hegemony of the European continent, and they also do not want the American forces to take the opportunity to penetrate into Europe. Compared with the United States, Paris is more willing to accept the existence of the Soviets. "Europe is the Europe of Europeans." This is the pride of Europa.

Therefore, in the international political pattern in the early postwar period, the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union is on the rise, but on the European continent, the Americans are just as unpopular as the Soviets. Britain and France, as old colonial empires, are also world powers. They are still unwilling to withdraw from the arena of world hegemony. Therefore, from this point of view, they cannot pee in the same pot as the Americans.

Just as Victor stated to Comrade Stalin when he was in Moscow before, in today's United States, a super-large interest group that can influence the country's political structure has taken shape and is still growing rapidly. Driven by this vested interest group, the Americans' foreign policy will become more and more arrogant and violent. They need to export wars to maintain the rapid development of their military economy.

War is obviously unpopular. Even if the U.S. military is strong, Washington will not get support from the people if it goes to war for a long time. Therefore, in terms of foreign policy, Washington needs to create an enemy for itself, one that can take To persuade the domestic people to support the imaginary enemy of the hawkish foreign policy, and in the current situation, no country in the whole world is more suitable to play this role than the Soviet Union.

Therefore, in a few months at the end of 1945, although there were frequent frictions and conflicts between the United States and the Soviet Union in the Far East, Middle East and other regions, it did not develop to the level of the real breakdown of diplomatic relations. Although George Kennan, the U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, has submitted a report of six to seven thousand words to Washington, detailing the necessity of restraining and restricting the Soviet Union, but on the issue of restricting the Soviet Union first, or restricting Britain and France first , Washington actually did not form a unified opinion.

It was also in the last few months of 1945 that Comrade Kuznetsov accepted a new appointment. He officially entered the Secretariat of the Central Committee while concurrently serving as the first secretary of the Leningrad Oblast and Municipal Committees. As the secretary of the secretariat in charge of national security work, after nearly four years of vacancy, the People's Commissariat of National Security finally has a competent leader.

Also in the past few months, Comrade Stalin pointed out at a meeting of the Politburo: The Party's work in the ideological field has serious deficiencies and blind spots. Therefore, the main work of the alliance now is not only to restore socialist industry in an all-round way, but also to Deep ideological work must be carried out among the masses. Therefore, under the guidance of this guiding ideology, a ideological rectification movement, initiated by the Propaganda and Agitation Department, which spread to the entire literary and art circles, academia and cultural circles of the alliance, was launched in an all-round way.

In the past few months, as the first secretary of the Karelian-Finnish Soviet Republic, Viktor devoted almost all his energy to combating the snowstorm and cold currents and ensuring the basic warmth and supply of the Republic. The position is very clear, that is, in the face of this rare cold winter, the Republic must ensure that no one is frozen to death. Immortality is a bottom line. Once this bottom line is broken, someone must take responsibility.