Download Winston Churchill: The Impact and Power of the Iron Curtain Speech

Winston Churchill:
The ImpacT and power of The “Iron cUrTaIn” Speech
Winston Churchill giving the “Iron Curtain” Speech at Westminster College (Massie).
Harrison
Writing 150H
30 April 2011
2
Winston Churchill‟s “Iron Curtain” speech is one of the most significant speeches of the
twentieth century (Warren 93). Churchill delivered the momentous speech in the gymnasium at
Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri on March 5, 1946. Churchill‟s reputation on the world
stage garnered widespread media coverage for the speech, and because of the extensive media
coverage, the speech received a myriad of reactions and was deemed controversial. Some
thought that the speech was a declaration of war, while others recognized the speech as
accurately illustrating the current world climate. The popular opinion was that Churchill alone
saw the need for a stricter Russian policy, but evidence shows that “American elite opinion was
already tending in that direction” (Ramsden 16). Winston Churchill‟s “Iron Curtain” speech did
not start the Cold War; rather, it had an immediate and lasting impact on America‟s postwar
identity.
Even though the American elite‟s views were changing, world opinion still believed that
Russia was an ally. The event that shaped world opinion prior to the “Iron Curtain” speech was
the Yalta Conference. Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin met at the Yalta Conference from
February 4 to February 11, 1945 and established the post-war reorganization of Europe. The
“Big Three” signed the Declaration on Liberated Europe “in which they agreed to uphold „the
right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live‟” (Stewart 180).
After World War II ended, the world was optimistic that countries could remain free of
international conflict because of the establishment of peaceful organizations such as the United
Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (Thatcher 151). Because of this optimism, Churchill‟s recognition of the
Soviet threat surprised those who did not realize that wartime alliances were disseminating.
3
Another event that changed foreign relations was Churchill‟s defeat in Parliament. When
Churchill‟s party was unexpectedly defeated in the election in July 1945, Churchill was replaced
as Prime Minister of Great Britain. After years of tirelessly working to inspire and preserve his
country during the Second World War, it looked as if Churchill would play a small role in the
post-war years. This was not to be so. After his personally devastating defeat, Churchill
continued to give speeches in order to keep his reputation alive and to influence world affairs
during his time out of office. Because Churchill was not an official government representative,
he was able to discuss controversial subjects, and because of who he was, the world paid
attention. Churchill received hundreds of invitations to give lectures, and in November 1945 he
accepted President Truman‟s request that he speak in Fulton, Missouri at Westminster College.
Churchill wrote to Truman in November saying, “The United States has reached a pinnacle of
glory and power not exceeded by any nation in the history of the world, and with that come not
only opportunities literally for saving misguided humanity but also terrible responsibilities if
those opportunities cannot be seized” (Ramsden 25). Even before his speech in Fulton, it is clear
that Churchill believed that world order was changing and that America had great responsibility.
The Yalta Conference and Churchill‟s defeat in Parliament were essential in preparing the world
to receive Churchill‟s message, but the speech itself did not start the Cold War.
Though popular opinion believed the “Iron Curtain” speech started the Cold War, the
escalation of the war had actually increased in the months leading up to the speech. The
correspondence between Churchill and Truman, Truman‟s Navy Day Speech, and George
Kennan‟s “long telegram” intensified Cold War tensions. Ten months prior to the “Iron Curtain”
speech, Churchill wrote Truman concerning his suspicions about Russia on May 12, 1945.
Churchill wrote:
4
Meanwhile what is to happen about Russia? I have always worked for friendship
with Russia, but, like you, I feel deep anxiety because of their misinterpretation of
the Yalta decisions, their attitude towards Poland, their overwhelming influence in
the Balkans, excepting Greece, the difficulties they make about Vienna, the
combination of Russian power and the territories under their control or occupied,
coupled with the Communist technique in so many other countries, and above all
their power to maintain very large armies in the field for a long time… An iron
curtain is drawn down upon their front. We do not know what is going on behind.
There seems little doubt that the whole of the regions east of the line LubeckTrieste-Corfu will soon be completely in their hands (Rahe 55).
Churchill used the term “iron curtain” just four days after the Allies declared victory in
Europe. Churchill and Truman shared suspicions concerning Russia just three months after the
Yalta Conference. Russia was already seen as a threat to post-war peace and world leaders were
concerned about possible divisions between Western democracies and Eastern communist
countries. Truman‟s administration began to work their way toward a tougher Russian policy
because they were alarmed by the Soviet‟s conduct in two specific incidences regarding the
Yalta Agreement (Rahe 59). The Soviets did not “live up to its [Anglo-Soviet] treaty obligations
and withdraw from northern Iran, and [their] attempt to force Turkey to give it bases in the
Dardanelles, to cede it territory in Anatolia, and to install a pro-Soviet government” ignored the
Yalta Agreement (Rahe 59). The Soviet‟s actions were “indicative of ambitions on their part that
extended well outside their natural sphere of influence in Eastern Europe” (Rahe 59). The
Soviets disregarded the right established by the Yalta Agreement that allowed all peoples to
5
decide what type of government they would live under. The Soviet‟s breach of the Yalta
Agreement showed that they were willing to disregard agreements and follow their own agenda.
On October 27, 1945, Truman delivered his Navy Day Speech, illustrating the United
States‟ intention to maintain their military power and their willingness to aid nations who desired
to resist and prevent aggression (Warren 113). The speech was significant because it was an
early precursor to Truman‟s later foreign policy, the Truman Doctrine. Tensions with Russia
continued to escalate during the winter of 1946. George Kennan, the American charge d‟affaires
in Moscow, sent the “long telegram” on February 9, 1946. The telegram illustrated the emerging
American policy toward the Soviet Union:
Wherever it is considered timely and promising, efforts will be made to advance
[the] official limits of Soviet power… It does not take unnecessary risks.
Impervious to [the] logic of reason, it is highly sensitive to [the] logic of force.
For this reason it can easily withdraw—and usually does—when strong resistance
is encountered at any point. Thus, if the adversary has sufficient force and makes
clear his readiness to use it, he rarely has to do so. If situations are properly
handled there need be no prestige-engaging showdowns (Rahe 63).
“Kennan‟s „long telegram‟ is often represented as the crucial intervention that shaped
subsequent American policy toward the Soviets” (Rahe 63). Thus, Cold War tensions were
evolving before Churchill delivered his “Iron Curtain” speech. The escalation of the Cold War
began just days after the war in Europe ended. The Soviet‟s determination to achieve their own
agenda at the expense of jeopardizing their relations with the West weakened West-East relations
and heightened the Cold War. Because tensions with Soviet Russia intensified and President
6
Truman invited Churchill to give the speech, speculation arose concerning government
involvement with Churchill‟s address.
Even though the British government approved of Churchill‟s trip, he did not specifically
tell the government what he intended to say in Fulton (Ramsden 28-31). Churchill told Lord
Halifax that he intended to speak on foreign affairs and he informed Prime Minister Atlee that he
planned to speak on closer Anglo-American relations without being against Russia (Ramsden
31). However, the American government seemed to know greater detail to what Churchill
intended to say in his speech. Churchill traveled to the United States in January 1946 on holiday,
and he met with President Truman at the White House on February 10th to discuss his upcoming
speech in Fulton. Truman supported the ideas in Churchill‟s speech because Truman recognized
that tensions between the West and Soviet Russia were escalating into a Cold War. Churchill
discussed his speech with President Truman again on their train ride to Fulton. Churchill showed
Truman the text on the train, and Churchill reported that Truman “„told me he thought it was
admirable and would do nothing but good, though it would make a stir. He seemed equally
pleased during and after‟ the speech‟s delivery” (Ramsden 42). It can be concluded that Truman
and Secretary of State Byrnes used Churchill to “send up a trial balloon” and “take the political
heat” (Rahe 64). Because Churchill was not in office, he was in the position to make the speech.
America was cautious about their foreign relations and Churchill still held immense influence in
world affairs (Rahe 64). Through the “Iron Curtain” speech, the United States indirectly sent a
message to Soviet Russia concerning their recent aggression in their neighboring countries.
Winston Churchill delivered his “Iron Curtain” speech in front of thousands of people on
March 5, 1946. Churchill outlined the threat communism posed to the free world and called for a
strengthening of Anglo-American relations. Churchill believed it was his duty to describe
7
“certain facts about the present position in Europe (Cannadine 303). While describing the present
situation in Europe, Churchill delivered the memorable, impactful line that illustrated
international relations for the next forty years. “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the
Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent” (Stewart 198). The image of the
iron curtain represented the split between the West and Soviet Russia; whereas the West was
capitalistic and democratic, Russia was communist and totalitarian. In addition, Churchill
outlined Soviet aggression in areas such as Turkey, Persia, Manchuria, and Eastern Europe.
Churchill stated that establishing new totalitarian governments in Eastern Europe was “not the
liberated Europe we fought to build up. Nor is it one which contains the essential of permanent
peace” (Stewart 198). Churchill used pathos to make the point that millions died in fighting a
war against tyranny, and reintroducing tyranny into the region was not what millions sacrificed
their lives for.
Even though Soviet Russia was showing signs of aggression, Churchill believed that
another war was preventable. Churchill stated that the prevention of war depended upon “the
fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between
the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States of America” (Warren 97). A
strengthened military alliance between the United States and Britain would “ensure continued
U.S. involvement in the world…and…help maintain the position of a depleted and exhausted
postwar Britain” (Warren 97). Because the United States was wary of joining a peacetime
alliance, Churchill used the idea of the United Nations to convince the United States that a
peacetime alliance would be beneficial. Churchill said that the special relationship between the
United States and Great Britain “is probably the only means by which [the United Nations] will
achieve its full stature and strength” (Cannadine 302). Churchill thought that closer Anglo-
8
American relations would strengthen the United Nations because the United States and Great
Britain would provide a “steadying and stabilizing” influence within the organization (Cannadine
303). Churchill was “deeply mindful of the sensibilities of his audience,” so he “subtly joined the
concept of the „special relationship‟ to the American romance with the United Nations” (Warren
98). Churchill skillfully articulated the implications of Russia‟s growing influence over its
neighbors, and he successfully argued for strengthening of Anglo-American ties. Through the
viewpoint of today, Churchill proves to be prophetic, but there was an initial contrast in
viewpoints between those who supported Churchill‟s claims and those who denounced his
claims.
The speech received positive and negative reviews in both the United States and Britain
that created a dichotomy in public opinion. Churchill received positive support from The New
York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, Time, and the Philadelphia Inquirer (Warren 105).
The Times of London and the American journals, the Nation and the New Republic, “denounced
Churchill‟s speech as an unwarranted provocation and a threat to Allied solidarity and
international peace” (Mahoney 69). In addition to the press, public officials were wary of issuing
support for the speech. Though President Truman approved of the speech privately, he did not
publically endorse the speech, and he denied that he knew its contents beforehand (Warren 106).
Additionally, Prime Minister Atlee did not comment on the speech. There was such widespread
criticism because people in 1946 were still optimistic and hopeful that world peace was
attainable. Critics believed that Churchill jeopardized the possibility of world peace and
alienated an ally by singling them out for disrupting international affairs. In response to the
reactions to the speech, Churchill said, “When I spoke at Fulton… I felt it was necessary for
someone in an unofficial position to speak in arresting terms about the present plight of the
9
world” (Ramsden 21). Like Churchill‟s prophetic views concerning Hitler after the Munich
Agreement in 1939, he would prove to be prophetic once again, this time concerning Stalin and
his goals in 1946.
Even though Churchill‟s “Iron Curtain” speech received conflicting reviews, the speech
had an immediate and lasting impact on America‟s postwar identity. Secretary of State Byrnes‟
actions after the speech illustrate the immediate impact of Churchill‟s speech on America‟s
postwar identity. Byrnes took action in the areas of Soviet aggression that were outlined by
Churchill‟s speech, namely Eastern Europe, Manchuria, and Persia. Byrnes‟ asked George
Kennan to collect “copies of all of the economic agreements that [the Soviets] had made with
Eastern European governments” that were established by the Yalta Accords (Rahe 66).
Additionally, Byrnes released diplomatic documents to the press that suggested “that the
Russians were looting Manchuria” (Rahe 66). Byrnes also released a statement which asserted
“that General Macarthur‟s authority as supreme Allied commander in Japan extended to all
places where there were Japanese forces,” which included parts of Manchuria (Rahe 66).
Furthermore, Byrnes sent a protest to Soviet Russia concerning their refusal to withdraw troops
from Iran. Byrnes actions further intensified Cold War tensions and supported Churchill‟s claim
that America had the responsibility to protect the world from tyranny. Churchill‟s speech had an
immediate effect on America‟s postwar identity because of the time in which it was given
(Ramsden 46). The speech was given during Russia‟s refusal to withdraw troops from Iran,
which proved Churchill‟s claims that Russia threatened world peace. Because of the speech, the
United States was able to take a stand immediately and initiate a stricter policy with Soviet
Russia.
10
The “Iron Curtain” speech had a lasting impact on America‟s postwar identity because
America adopted Churchill‟s vision of the postwar United States, in which it led the effort to
promote democracy around the world. In the speech Churchill stated, “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” (Cannadine 297). Because the United States held
immense power, it had the responsibility to make the world safe for democracy. The “Iron
Curtain” speech inspired Americans to be world leaders, encourage democracy, and prevent
tyranny. With Churchill‟s message in mind, the United States developed strengthened ties with
Western Europe, particularly Great Britain. The Anglo-American alliance that Churchill
illustrated inspired “the creation of the greatest instrument of democratic collective security ever
designed, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)” (Mahoney 70). Additionally, the
United States continued to tie itself closely to Europe, through active UN participation, the
Marshall Plan, and the Truman Doctrine. The United States‟ new identity caused them to adopt
the role of world hegemon and policeman. Churchill‟s “Iron Curtain” speech was immensely
impactful not only because it was given by Winston Churchill, but it gave America a post-war
identity that continues to shape its foreign policy today.
Winston Churchill was one of the most influential figures in the twentieth century. His
experience and leadership during the Second World War caused the world to listen to his
message even though he was an unofficial authority. The world loved Churchill because he had
been the voice of the Allied forces less than a decade earlier when Hitler sought to take over
Europe, offering inspiration and a moral cause to fight against the Axis powers. At war‟s end,
11
Churchill continued his leadership by denouncing the new, emerging evil power in the world.
Because of the political landscape at the time of the speech, Churchill‟s words were not initially
popular. The possibility of his words being construed negatively and being seen as starting a war
did not deter Churchill. Churchill knew what he had to say to denounce a growing international
threat and to empower an emerging hegemon. Fear of failure and criticism did not scare
Churchill because he had the courage to say what nobody wanted to say. Pierson Dixon said it
best, “I must say Winston‟s speech echoes the sentiments of all. None but he could have said it”
(qtd. In Ramsden 47).
12
Works Cited
Cannadine, David, ed. Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat: The Speeches of Winston Churchill.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1989. Print.
Mahoney, Daniel J. “Moral Principle and Realistic Judgment.” Muller 69-92.
Massie, Gerald. Winston Churchill giving the “Iron Curtain Speech” at Westminster College.
The State Historical Society of Missouri. 2011. Web. 27 March, 2011.
Muller, James W., ed. Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” Speech Fifty Years Later. Columbia, Missouri:
University of Missouri Press, 1999. Print.
Rahe, Paul. “The Beginning of the Cold War.” Muller 49-68.
Ramsden, John. “Mr. Churchill Goes to Fulton.” Muller 15-48.
Stewart, Graham. His Finest Hours: The War Speeches of Winston Churchill. London: Quercus,
2007. Print.
Thatcher, Margaret. “Epilogue: New Threats for Old.” Muller 151-168.
Warren Spencer. “A Philosophy of International Politics.” Muller 93-128.