“The Sinews of Peace” and the Cold War 1946-1989
Through a study of primary sources, research, and class discussions, we
will explore Winston Churchill’s “The Sinews of Peace” speech and the
repercussions of that speech at different moments of the Cold War. We will
pay attention to the language of the speech, the imagery, and the intent of
the speech. We will continue to explore the impact of Churchill’s speech
on the Cold War through an analysis of various speeches from 1947 to
1989. In small groups, you will analyze these speeches and compare them
to Churchill’s speech.
It is expected that you will continue to read the assigned textbook readings
as we work together on this project. A website that will provide
background and additional readings is provided for each document.
While we are discussing the documents, think about the following essay
topic. Your essay will have an introduction in which you place the two
documents in their historical context and then include a thesis statement,
several body paragraphs in which you quote from both documents to
support your thesis, and a concluding paragraph. You will turn in a two
page summative essay on _____________.
To what extent are the language and ideas expressed in Winston Churchill’s “The
Sinews of Peace” speech reflected in the document you read from the Cold War
period? Is the document an extension or a rejection of Churchill’s ideas?
Lesson 1
For class, read “The Sinews of Peace” and answer the questions that precede the
document. The first set of questions follow the text of the speech and will help you
identify the key ideas. The second set of questions asks you to analyze the tone and
meaning of Churchill’s speech.
In class, discuss your responses to the reading in your small group and be prepared to
present your assessment to the whole group.
Lesson 2
For class, read your group’s assigned document. You will also need to use your textbook
to read the relevant background information to your specific speech. Use the questions
that precede your document as a guide. Write out your answers and think about other
questions the document raises.
In your small group, analyze the document together and find passages that you think
illustrate an extension or rejection of Churchill’s arguments.
Prepare a brief description of the historical context of the document and discussion of
particularly important passages in your document. As a group, raise some questions for
the class that emerge from your document.
Does your document agree or disagree with Churchill’s point of view? Is it neutral?
Does your document represent an extension of Churchill’s ideas and how does it reflect
events of the Cold War as they developed?
Lesson 3
Class presentations of the small group discussions
Websites
Winston Churchill
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=2
Joseph Stalin
http://www.casahistoria.net/Stalin2.htm
Harry Truman
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/
The Berlin Airlift
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/berlin_airlift/lar
ge/docs.php
John F. Kennedy
http://www.jfklibrary.org/historical+resources/archives/reference+desk/
Mikhail Gorbachev
http://www.mikhailgorbachev.org/
Ronald Reagan
http://www.ronaldreagan.com/
Chronologies of WWII and the Cold War
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/timeline/frameset.html
2
Document # 1
Winston S. Churchill:
"The Sinews of Peace", March 5, 1946
Study Questions
A. Document Reading












Whose views does Churchill represent in this speech?
What is the opportunity facing the United States?
What is the “over-all strategic concept” that Churchill thinks ought to be followed?
Identify the two “giant marauders”
What organization exists that will help establish the ‘temple of peace”?
How does Churchill connect British and American history?
Identify the third great danger facing people
Describe the ‘’special relationship’
What is the “iron curtain”?
Identify two countries in the Eastern Mediterranean that Churchill believes are
threatened by communism
Why does Churchill feel Europe is not up to the task of defending herself against
Communism?
What does Churchill believe is the goal of Soviet Russia?
B. Document Analysis










Assess the degree of urgency with which Churchill speaks
In the first half of the speech, Churchill carefully lays out his argument for a
‘special relationship’ between the United States and Great Britain. To what extent
do you think he achieved his goal? What arguments could his American audience
have against such a relationship? Does Churchill anticipate and deflect those
arguments?
How does Churchill reconcile his encouragement of a strong United Nations as
well as a special relationship between the US and GB? Is there a contradiction
here?
In his description of the ‘temple of peace,’ would you describe Churchill’s tools as
pacifistic or militaristic? As defensive or offensive? Identify key passages
What organization exists that will help establish the ‘temple of peace”?
What role does Churchill ascribe to the common man in defending democracy? Is
this a significant extension of the role played by civilians in World War II?
How would you describe the overall tone of the speech? As a teenager reading the
speech in 1946, how would you have identified with the three great threats named
by Churchill? What policy would you want your government to pursue?
In the latter part of the speech, Churchill famously describes the “iron curtain.”
How would you have responded to that idea? Would it make you want to become
more isolationist or to enter into a special relationship with Britain?
Shortly after Churchill predicts a new war, he says that he believes Soviet Russia
does not desire war. What, then, would cause this war?
What lesson does Churchill want his listeners to learn from World War II?
3
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
4
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 Englishspeaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by
5
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 or 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 Do-minion 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
6
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
many 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.
7
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 factsand 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 wellinformed 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
8
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 highroads of the future will be clear, not only for us but for all, not only for our time, but for a
century to come. http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=429
9
Document #2
Stalin’s Response to Churchill, 1946





How does Stalin describe Winston Churchill?
What does he say are Churchill’s aims in his speech?
Why does Stalin compare Churchill to Hitler? To what effect?
What does he say is the goal of the Soviet Union?
To what extent are the language and ideas expressed in Winston Churchill’s “The
Sinews of Peace” speech reflected in this document of the Cold War period?
... In substance, Mr. Churchill now stands in the position of a firebrand of war. And Mr. Churchill is
not alone here. He has friends not only in England but also in the United States of America.
In this respect, one is reminded remarkably of Hitler and his friends. Hitler began to set war loose
by announcing his racial theory, declaring that only people speaking the German language
represent a fully valuable nation. Mr. Churchill begins to set war loose, also by a racial theory,
maintaining that only nations speaking the English language are fully valuable nations, called
upon to decide the destinies of the entire world.
The German racial theory brought Hitler and his friends to the conclusion that the Germans, as
the only fully valuable nation, must rule over other nations. The English racial theory brings Mr.
Churchill and his friends to the conclusion that nations speaking the English language, being the
only fully valuable nations, should rule over the remaining nations of the world....
As a result of the German invasion, the Soviet Union has irrevocably lost in battles with the
Germans, and also during the German occupation and through the expulsion of Soviet citizens to
German slave labor camps, about 7,000,000 people. In other words, the Soviet Union has lost in
men several times more than Britain and the United States together.
…Mr. Churchill wanders around the truth when he speaks of the growth of the influence of the
Communist parties in Eastern Europe.... The growth of the influence of communism cannot be
considered accidental. It is a normal function. The influence of the Communists grew because
during the hard years of the mastery of fascism in Europe, Communists slowed themselves to be
reliable, daring and self-sacrificing fighters against fascist regimes for the liberty of peoples.
Mr. Churchill sometimes recalls in his speeches the common people from small houses, patting
them on the shoulder in a lordly manner and pretending to be their friend. But these people are
not so simpleminded as it might appear at first sight. Common people, too, have their opinions
and their own politics. And they know how to stand up for themselves.
It is they, millions of these common people, who voted Mr. Churchill and his party out in England,
giving their votes to the Labor party. It is they, millions of these common people, who isolated
reactionaries in Europe, collaborators with fascism, and gave preference to Left democratic
parties
From "Stalin's Reply to Churchill," March 14, 1946 (interview with Pravda), The New York Times,
p. 4.
10
This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copypermitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic
copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate
the source. No permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook.
(c)Paul Halsall Aug 1997
11
Document #3
The Truman Doctrine
President Harry S. Truman
Address before a Joint Session of Congress
March 12, 1947







Why does Truman want Congress to go to the aid of Greece? Turkey?
What does he want Congress to do?
Why does Truman say the United Nations can not help?
Find passages that reflect the ‘iron curtain’ imagery of Churchill’s speech
According to Truman, what is the significance of the geographic location of Greece
and Turkey?
What does Truman say will happen if the United States does not intervene?
To what extent are the language and ideas expressed in Winston Churchill’s “The
Sinews of Peace” speech reflected in this document of the Cold War period?
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Congress of the United States:
The gravity of the situation which confronts the world today necessitates my appearance before a
joint session of the Congress. The foreign policy and the national security of this country are
involved.
One aspect of the present situation, which I wish to present to you at this time for your
consideration and decision, concerns Greece and Turkey.
The United States has received from the Greek Government an urgent appeal for financial and
economic assistance. Preliminary reports from the American Economic Mission now in Greece
and reports from the American Ambassador in Greece corroborate the statement of the Greek
Government that assistance is imperative if Greece is to survive as a free nation.
I do not believe that the American people and the Congress wish to turn a deaf ear to the appeal
of the Greek Government.
Greece is not a rich country. Lack of sufficient natural resources has always forced the Greek
people to work hard to make both ends meet. Since 1940, this industrious and peace loving
country has suffered invasion, four years of cruel enemy occupation, and bitter internal strife.
When forces of liberation entered Greece they found that the retreating Germans had destroyed
virtually all the railways, roads, port facilities, communications, and merchant marine. More than a
thousand villages had been burned. Eighty-five per cent of the children were tubercular.
Livestock, poultry, and draft animals had almost disappeared. Inflation had wiped out practically
all savings.
As a result of these tragic conditions, a militant minority, exploiting human want and misery, was
able to create political chaos which, until now, has made economic recovery impossible.
Greece is today without funds to finance the importation of those goods which are essential to
bare subsistence. Under these circumstances the people of Greece cannot make progress in
solving their problems of reconstruction. Greece is in desperate need of financial and economic
assistance to enable it to resume purchases of food, clothing, fuel and seeds. These are
12
indispensable for the subsistence of its people and are obtainable only from abroad. Greece must
have help to import the goods necessary to restore internal order and security, so essential for
economic and political recovery.
The Greek Government has also asked for the assistance of experienced American
administrators, economists and technicians to insure that the financial and other aid given to
Greece shall be used effectively in creating a stable and self-sustaining economy and in
improving its public administration.
The very existence of the Greek state is today threatened by the terrorist activities of several
thousand armed men, led by Communists, who defy the government's authority at a number of
points, particularly along the northern boundaries. A Commission appointed by the United Nations
security Council is at present investigating disturbed conditions in northern Greece and alleged
border violations along the frontier between Greece on the one hand and Albania, Bulgaria, and
Yugoslavia on the other.
Meanwhile, the Greek Government is unable to cope with the situation. The Greek army is small
and poorly equipped. It needs supplies and equipment if it is to restore the authority of the
government throughout Greek territory. Greece must have assistance if it is to become a selfsupporting and self-respecting democracy.
The United States must supply that assistance. We have already extended to Greece certain
types of relief and economic aid but these are inadequate.
There is no other country to which democratic Greece can turn.
No other nation is willing and able to provide the necessary support for a democratic Greek
government.
The British Government, which has been helping Greece, can give no further financial or
economic aid after March 31. Great Britain finds itself under the necessity of reducing or
liquidating its commitments in several parts of the world, including Greece.
We have considered how the United Nations might assist in this crisis. But the situation is an
urgent one requiring immediate action and the United Nations and its related organizations are
not in a position to extend help of the kind that is required.
It is important to note that the Greek Government has asked for our aid in utilizing effectively the
financial and other assistance we may give to Greece, and in improving its public administration.
It is of the utmost importance that we supervise the use of any funds made available to Greece; in
such a manner that each dollar spent will count toward making Greece self-supporting, and will
help to build an economy in which a healthy democracy can flourish.
No government is perfect. One of the chief virtues of a democracy, however, is that its defects are
always visible and under democratic processes can be pointed out and corrected. The
Government of Greece is not perfect. Nevertheless it represents eighty-five per cent of the
members of the Greek Parliament who were chosen in an election last year. Foreign observers,
including 692 Americans, considered this election to be a fair expression of the views of the
Greek people.
The Greek Government has been operating in an atmosphere of chaos and extremism. It has
made mistakes. The extension of aid by this country does not mean that the United States
condones everything that the Greek Government has done or will do. We have condemned in the
13
past, and we condemn now, extremist measures of the right or the left. We have in the past
advised tolerance, and we advise tolerance now.
Greece's neighbor, Turkey, also deserves our attention.
The future of Turkey as an independent and economically sound state is clearly no less important
to the freedom-loving peoples of the world than the future of Greece. The circumstances in which
Turkey finds itself today are considerably different from those of Greece. Turkey has been spared
the disasters that have beset Greece. And during the war, the United States and Great Britain
furnished Turkey with material aid.
Nevertheless, Turkey now needs our support.
Since the war Turkey has sought financial assistance from Great Britain and the United States for
the purpose of effecting that modernization necessary for the maintenance of its national integrity.
That integrity is essential to the preservation of order in the Middle East.
The British government has informed us that, owing to its own difficulties can no longer extend
financial or economic aid to Turkey.
As in the case of Greece, if Turkey is to have the assistance it needs, the United States must
supply it. We are the only country able to provide that help.
I am fully aware of the broad implications involved if the United States extends assistance to
Greece and Turkey, and I shall discuss these implications with you at this time.
One of the primary objectives of the foreign policy of the United States is the creation of
conditions in which we and other nations will be able to work out a way of life free from coercion.
This was a fundamental issue in the war with Germany and Japan. Our victory was won over
countries which sought to impose their will, and their way of life, upon other nations.
To ensure the peaceful development of nations, free from coercion, the United States has taken a
leading part in establishing the United Nations, The United Nations is designed to make possible
lasting freedom and independence for all its members. We shall not realize our objectives,
however, unless we are willing to help free peoples to maintain their free institutions and their
national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian
regimes. This is no more than a frank recognition that totalitarian regimes imposed on free
peoples, by direct or indirect aggression, undermine the foundations of international peace and
hence the security of the United States.
The peoples of a number of countries of the world have recently had totalitarian regimes forced
upon them against their will. The Government of the United States has made frequent protests
against coercion and intimidation, in violation of the Yalta agreement, in Poland, Rumania, and
Bulgaria. I must also state that in a number of other countries there have been similar
developments.
At the present moment in world history nearly every nation must choose between alternative
ways of life. The choice is too often not a free one.
One way of life is based upon the will of the majority, and is distinguished by free institutions,
representative government, free elections, guarantees of individual liberty, freedom of speech
and religion, and freedom from political oppression.
14
The second way of life is based upon the will of a minority forcibly imposed upon the majority. It
relies upon terror and oppression, a controlled press and radio; fixed elections, and the
suppression of personal freedoms.
I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting
attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.
I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way.
I believe that our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid which is essential to
economic stability and orderly political processes.
The world is not static, and the status quo is not sacred. But we cannot allow changes in the
status quo in violation of the Charter of the United Nations by such methods as coercion, or by
such subterfuges as political infiltration. In helping free and independent nations to maintain their
freedom, the United States will be giving effect to the principles of the Charter of the United
Nations.
It is necessary only to glance at a map to realize that the survival and integrity of the Greek nation
are of grave importance in a much wider situation. If Greece should fall under the control of an
armed minority, the effect upon its neighbor, Turkey, would be immediate and serious. Confusion
and disorder might well spread throughout the entire Middle East.
Moreover, the disappearance of Greece as an independent state would have a profound effect
upon those countries in Europe whose peoples are struggling against great difficulties to maintain
their freedoms and their independence while they repair the damages of war.
It would be an unspeakable tragedy if these countries, which have struggled so long against
overwhelming odds, should lose that victory for which they sacrificed so much. Collapse of free
institutions and loss of independence would be disastrous not only for them but for the world.
Discouragement and possibly failure would quickly be the lot of neighboring peoples striving to
maintain their freedom and independence.
Should we fail to aid Greece and Turkey in this fateful hour, the effect will be far reaching to the
West as well as to the East.
We must take immediate and resolute action.
I therefore ask the Congress to provide authority for assistance to Greece and Turkey in the
amount of $400,000,000 for the period ending June 30, 1948. In requesting these funds, I have
taken into consideration the maximum amount of relief assistance which would be furnished to
Greece out of the $350,000,000 which I recently requested that the Congress authorize for the
prevention of starvation and suffering in countries devastated by the war.
In addition to funds, I ask the Congress to authorize the detail of American civilian and military
personnel to Greece and Turkey, at the request of those countries, to assist in the tasks of
reconstruction, and for the purpose of supervising the use of such financial and material
assistance as may be furnished. I recommend that authority also be provided for the instruction
and training of selected Greek and Turkish personnel.
Finally, I ask that the Congress provide authority which will permit the speediest and most
effective use, in terms of needed commodities, supplies, and equipment, of such funds as may be
authorized.
15
If further funds, or further authority, should be needed for purposes indicated in this message, I
shall not hesitate to bring the situation before the Congress. On this subject the Executive and
Legislative branches of the Government must work together.
This is a serious course upon which we embark.
I would not recommend it except that the alternative is much more serious. The United States
contributed $341,000,000,000 toward winning World War II. This is an investment in world
freedom and world peace.
The assistance that I am recommending for Greece and Turkey amounts to little more than 1
tenth of 1 per cent of this investment. It is only common sense that we should safeguard this
investment and make sure that it was not in vain.
The seeds of totalitarian regimes are nurtured by misery and want. They spread and grow in the
evil soil of poverty and strife. They reach their full growth when the hope of a people for a better
life has died. We must keep that hope alive.
The free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms.
If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world -- and we shall surely
endanger the welfare of our own nation.
Great responsibilities have been placed upon us by the swift movement of events.
I am confident that the Congress will face these responsibilities squarely.
This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copypermitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic
copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate
the source. No permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook.
(c)Paul Halsall Aug 1997
16
Document #4
The Berlin Airlift




Research the Berlin Airlift at the following web site:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/berlin_airlift/large/docs
.php?action=docs
Identify the actions of the Soviet Union that led to President Truman’s decision
Place the Berlin Airlift in the context of the Cold War. Prepare a presentation to the
class that describes the Berlin Airlift.
To what extent are the language and ideas expressed in Winston Churchill’s “The
Sinews of Peace” speech reflected in this action of the Cold War?
17
Document #5
President John F. Kennedy:
Towards a Strategy of Peace, June 10, 1963





Define what peace means to Kennedy
How does Kennedy describe American attitudes towards the Soviet Union?
What do Americans and Soviets have in common, according to Kennedy?
Describe the line that Kennedy draws in his quest for peace.
To what extent are the language and ideas expressed in Winston Churchill’s “The
Sinews of Peace” speech reflected in later speeches and actions during the Cold
War period?
Address by President Kennedy at The American University, Washington, D.C., June 10, 1963
I have . . . chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often
abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived-yet it is the most important topic on earth: world
peace.
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced
on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave.
I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind
that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children-not
merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but
peace for all time. .
First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too
many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is
inevitable, that mankind is doomed, that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.
We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade; therefore they can be solved by man.
And man can be as big as be wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings.
Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable, and we believe they can do
it again.
I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of universal peace and good will of which some
fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the values of hopes and dreams, but we merely invite
discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.
Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden
revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions - on a series of
concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no
single, simple key to this peace, no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers.
Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic,
not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process, a way
of solving problems.
With such a peace there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families
and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his
18
neighbor; it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a
just and peaceful settlement. . . .
Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union.
No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue.
As Americans we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and
dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements-in science and
space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.
Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than
our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never
been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the
Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. . . .
Today, should total war ever break out again-no matter how-our two countries would become the
primary targets. It is an ironical but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the
most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the
first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many countries
- including this nation's closest allies - our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are
both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating
ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in
which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other and new weapons beget counterweapons.
In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually
deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end
arc in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours, and even the most hostile nations can be
relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which
are in their own interest. . . .
Third: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that we are not engaged
in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the
finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is and not as it might have been bad the
history of the last 18 years been different. . . .
Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear. We are bound to many nations by
alliances. Those alliances exist because our concern and theirs substantially overlap. Our
commitment to defend Western Europe and West Berlin, for example, stands undiminished
because of the identity of our vital interests. The United States will make no deal with the Soviet
Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely because they are our
partners but also because their interests and ours converge.
Our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of freedom but in pursuing
the paths of peace. It is our hope-and the purpose of Allied policies-to convince the Soviet Union
that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does not
interfere with the choices of others. The Communist drive to impose their political and economic
system on others is the primary cause of world tension today. For there can be no doubt that, if all
nations could refrain from interfering in the self-determination of others, the peace would be much
more assured. . . .
I am taking this opportunity . . . to announce two important decisions . . .
19
First: Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level
discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward early agreement on a comprehensive test
ban treaty. Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history, but with our hopes go the
hopes of all mankind.
Second: To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on the matter, I now declare that
the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other
states do not do so. We will not be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a
formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a
substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve it.
Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and freedom here at
home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad. . . .
It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government -local, State, and
national-to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within their
authority. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever that authority is not
now adequate, to make it adequate. And it is the responsibility of all citizens in all sections of this
country to respect the rights of all others and to respect the law of the land. . . .
While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests. And
the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both. No treaty, however much it may
be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security
against the risks of deception and evasion. But it can, if it is sufficiently effective in its
enforcement and if it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers, offer far more security and far
fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.
The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not
now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough - more than enough-of
war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to
stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the
strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and
unafraid, we labor on-not toward a strategv of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.
Source:
from The Department of State Bulletin, XLIX, No. 1253 (July 1, 1963), pp. 2-6.
This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copypermitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic
copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate
the source. No permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook.
© Paul Halsall, July 1998
20
Document #6
Excerpts of Address by Mikhail Gorbachev
43rd U.N. General Assembly Session December 7, 1988






Describe the world that Gorbachev sees as emerging in 1988
What are some of the revolutionary changes that Gorbachev describes?
What else does he say needs to be done? Why?
How has the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union changed
over five and a half decades?
Assess the extent to which this speech demonstrates Winston Churchill’s
description of the iron curtain in his “Sinews of Peace” speech
To what extent are the language and ideas expressed in Winston Churchill’s “The
Sinews of Peace” speech reflected in this document of the Cold War?
Two great revolutions, the French revolution of 1789 and the Russian revolution of 1917, have
exerted a powerful influence on the actual nature of the historical process and radically changed
the course of world events. Both of them, each in its own way, have given a gigantic impetus to
man's progress. They are also the ones that have formed in many respects the way of thinking
which is still prevailing in the public consciousness.
That is a very great spiritual wealth, but there emerges before us today a different world, for
which it is necessary to seek different roads toward the future, to seek -- relying, of course, on
accumulated experience -- but also seeing the radical differences between that which was
yesterday and that which is taking place today.
The newness of the tasks, and at the same time their difficulty, are not limited to this. Today we
have entered an era when progress will be based on the interests of all mankind. Consciousness
of this requires that world policy, too, should be determined by the priority of the values of all
mankind.
The history of the past centuries and millennia has been a history of almost ubiquitous wars, and
sometimes desperate battles, leading to mutual destruction. They occurred in the clash of social
and political interests and national hostility, be it from ideological or religious incompatibility. All
that was the case, and even now many still claim that this past -- which has not been overcome -is an immutable pattern. However, parallel with the process of wars, hostility, and alienation of
peoples and countries, another process, just as objectively conditioned, was in motion and
gaining force: The process of the emergence of a mutually connected and integral world.
Further world progress is now possible only through the search for a consensus of all mankind, in
movement toward a new world order. We have arrived at a frontier at which controlled
spontaneity leads to a dead end. The world community must learn to shape and direct the
process in such a way as to preserve civilization, to make it safe for all and more pleasant for
normal life. It is a question of cooperation that could be more accurately called "co-creation" and
"co-development." The formula of development "at another's expense" is becoming outdated. In
light of present realities, genuine progress by infringing upon the rights and liberties of man and
peoples, or at the expense of nature, is impossible.
The very tackling of global problems requires a new "volume" and "quality" of cooperation by
states and sociopolitical currents regardless of ideological and other differences.
21
Of course, radical and revolutionary changes are taking place and will continue to take place
within individual countries and social structures. This has been and will continue to be the case,
but our times are making corrections here, too. Internal transformational processes cannot
achieve their national objectives merely by taking "course parallel" with others without using the
achievements of the surrounding world and the possibilities of equitable cooperation. In these
conditions, interference in those internal processes with the aim of altering them according to
someone else's prescription would be all the more destructive for the emergence of a peaceful
order. In the past, differences often served as a factor in puling away from one another. Now they
are being given the opportunity to be a factor in mutual enrichment and attraction. Behind
differences in social structure, in the way of life, and in the preference for certain values, stand
interests. There is no getting away from that, but neither is there any getting away from the need
to find a balance of interests within an international framework, which has become a condition for
survival and progress. As you ponder all this, you come to the conclusion that if we wish to take
account of the lessons of the past and the realities of the present, if we must reckon with the
objective logic of world development, it is necessary to seek -- and the seek jointly -- an approach
toward improving the international situation and building a new world. If that is so, then it is also
worth agreeing on the fundamental and truly universal prerequisites and principles for such
activities. It is evident, for example, that force and the threat of force can no longer be, and should
not be instruments of foreign policy. [...]
The compelling necessity of the principle of freedom of choice is also clear to us. The failure to
recognize this, to recognize it, is fraught with very dire consequences, consequences for world
peace. Denying that right to the peoples, no matter what the pretext, no matter what the words
are used to conceal it, means infringing upon even the unstable balance that is, has been
possible to achieve.
Freedom of choice is a universal principle to which there should be no exceptions. We have not
come to the conclusion of the immutability of this principle simply through good motives. We have
been led to it through impartial analysis of the objective processes of our time. The increasing
varieties of social development in different countries are becoming in ever more perceptible
feature of these processes. This relates to both the capitalist and socialist systems. The variety of
sociopolitical structures which has grown over the last decades from national liberation
movements also demonstrates this. This objective fact presupposes respect for other people's
vies and stands, tolerance, a preparedness to see phenomena that are different as not
necessarily bad or hostile, and an ability to learn to live side by side while remaining different and
not agreeing with one another on every issue.
The de-ideologization of interstate relations has become a demand of the new stage. We are not
giving up our convictions, philosophy, or traditions. Neither are we calling on anyone else to give
up theirs. Yet we are not going to shut ourselves up within the range of our values. That would
lead to spiritual impoverishment, for it would mean renouncing so powerful a source of
development as sharing all the original things created independently by each nation. In the
course of such sharing, each should prove the advantages of his own system, his own way of life
and values, but not through words or propaganda alone, but through real deeds as well. That is,
indeed, an honest struggle of ideology, but it must not be carried over into mutual relations
between states. Otherwise we simply will not be able to solve a single world problem; arrange
broad, mutually advantageous and equitable cooperation between peoples; manage rationally the
achievements of the scientific and technical revolution; transform world economic relations;
protect the environment; overcome underdevelopment; or put an end to hunger, disease,
illiteracy, and other mass ills. Finally, in that case, we will not manage to eliminate the nuclear
threat and militarism.
Such are our reflections on the natural order of things in the world on the threshold of the 21st
century. We are, of course, far from claiming to have infallible truth, but having subjected the
22
previous realities -- realities that have arisen again -- to strict analysis, we have come to the
conclusion that it is by precisely such approaches that we must search jointly for a way to achieve
the supremacy of the common human idea over the countless multiplicity of centrifugal forces, to
preserve the vitality of a civilization that is possible that only one in the universe. [...]
Our country is undergoing a truly revolutionary upsurge. The process of restructuring is gaining
pace; We started by elaborating the theoretical concepts of restructuring; we had to assess the
nature and scope of the problems, to interpret the lessons of the past, and to express this in the
form of political conclusions and programs. This was done. The theoretical work, the reinterpretation of what had happened, the final elaboration, enrichment, and correction of political
stances have not ended. They continue. However, it was fundamentally important to start from an
overall concept, which is already now being confirmed by the experience of past years, which has
turned out to be generally correct and to which there is no alternative.
In order to involve society in implementing the plans for restructuring it had to be made more truly
democratic. Under the badge of democratization, restructuring has now encompassed politics,
the economy, spiritual life, and ideology. We have unfolded a radical economic reform, we have
accumulated experience, and from the new year we are transferring the entire national economy
to new forms and work methods. Moreover, this means a profound reorganization of production
relations and the realization of the immense potential of socialist property.
In moving toward such bold revolutionary transformations, we understood that there would be
errors, that there would be resistance, that the novelty would bring new problems. We foresaw
the possibility of breaking in individual sections. However, the profound democratic reform of the
entire system of power and government is the guarantee that the overall process of restructuring
will move steadily forward and gather strength.
We completed the first stage of the process of political reform with the recent decisions by the
U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet on amendments to the Constitution and the adoption of the Law on
Elections. Without stopping, we embarked upon the second stage of this. At which the most
important task will be working on the interaction between the central government and the
republics, settling relations between nationalities on the principles of Leninist internationalism
bequeathed to us by the great revolution and, at the same time, reorganizing the power of the
Soviets locally. We are faced with immense work. At the same time we must resolve major
problems.
We are more than fully confident. We have both the theory, the policy and the vanguard force of
restructuring a party which is also restructuring itself in accordance with the new tasks and the
radical changes throughout society. And the most important thing: all peoples and all generations
of citizens in our great country are in favor of restructuring.
We have gone substantially and deeply into the business of constructing a socialist state based
on the rule of law. A whole series of new laws has been prepared or is at a completion stage.
Many of them come into force as early as 1989, and we trust that they will correspond to the
highest standards from the point of view of ensuring the rights of the individual. Soviet democracy
is to acquire a firm, normative base. This means such acts as the Law on Freedom of
Conscience, on glasnost, on public associations and organizations, and on much else. There are
now no people in places of imprisonment in the country who have been sentenced for their
political or religious convictions. It is proposed to include in the drafts of the new laws additional
guarantees ruling out any form or persecution on these bases. Of course, this does not apply to
those who have committed real criminal or state offenses: espionage, sabotage, terrorism, and so
on, whatever political or philosophical views they may hold.
23
The draft amendments to the criminal code are ready and waiting their turn. In particular, those
articles relating to the use of the supreme measure of punishment are being reviewed. The
problem of exit and entry is also being resolved in a humane spirit, including the case of leaving
the country in order to be reunited with relatives. As you know, one of the reasons for refusal of
visas is citizens' possession of secrets. Strictly substantiated terms for the length of time for
possessing secrets are being introduced in advance. On starting work at a relevant institution or
enterprise, everyone will be made aware of this regulation. Disputes that arise can be appealed
under the law. Thus the problem of the so-called "refuseniks" is being removed.
We intend to expand the Soviet Union's participation in the monitoring mechanism on human
rights in the United Nations and within the framework of the pan-European process. We consider
that the jurisdiction of the International Court in The Hague with respect to interpreting and
applying agreements in the field of human rights should be obligatory for all states
24
Within the Helsinki process, we are also examining an end to jamming of all the foreign radio
broadcasts to the Soviet Union. On the whole, our credo is as follows: Political problems should
be solved only by political means, and human problems only in a humane way. [...]
Now about the most important topic, without which no problem of the coming century can be
resolved: disarmament. [...]
Today I can inform you of the following: The Soviet Union has made a decision on reducing its
armed forces. In the next two years, their numerical strength will be reduced by 500,000 persons,
and the volume of conventional arms will also be cut considerably. These reductions will be made
on a unilateral basis, unconnected with negotiations on the mandate for the Vienna meeting. By
agreement with our allies in the Warsaw Pact, we have made the decision to withdraw six tank
divisions from the GDR, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, and to disband them by 1991. Assault
landing formations and units, and a number of others, including assault river-crossing forces, with
their armaments and combat equipment, will also be withdrawn from the groups of Soviet forces
situated in those countries. The Soviet forces situated in those countries will be cut by 50,000
persons, and their arms by 5,000 tanks. All remaining Soviet divisions on the territory of our allies
will be reorganized. They will be given a different structure from today's which will become
unambiguously defensive, after the removal of a large number of their tanks. [...]
By this act, just as by all our actions aimed at the demilitarization of international relations, we
would also like to draw the attention of the world community to another topical problem, the
problem of changing over from an economy of armament to an economy of disarmament. Is the
conversion of military production realistic? I have already had occasion to speak about this. We
believe that it is, indeed, realistic. For its part, the Soviet Union is ready to do the following. Within
the framework of the economic reform we are ready to draw up and submit our internal plan for
conversion, to prepare in the course of 1989, as an experiment, the plans for the conversion of
two or three defense enterprises, to publish our experience of job relocation of specialists from
the military industry, and also of using its equipment, buildings, and works in civilian industry, It is
desirable that all states, primarily the major military powers, submit their national plans on this
issue to the United Nations.
It would be useful to form a group of scientists, entrusting it with a comprehensive analysis of
problems of conversion as a whole and as applied to individual countries and regions, to be
reported to the U.N. secretary-general, and later to examine this matter at a General Assembly
session.
Finally, being on U.S. soil, but also for other, understandable reasons, I cannot but turn to the
subject of our relations with this great country. ... Relations between the Soviet Union and the
United States of America span 5 1/2 decades. The world has changed, and so have the nature,
role, and place of these relations in world politics. For too long they were built under the banner of
confrontation, and sometimes of hostility, either open or concealed. But in the last few years,
throughout the world people were able to heave a sigh of relief, thanks to the changes for the
better in the substance and atmosphere of the relations between Moscow and Washington.
No one intends to underestimate the serious nature of the disagreements, and the difficulties of
the problems which have not been settled. However, we have already graduated from the primary
school of instruction in mutual understanding and in searching for solutions in our and in the
common interests. The U.S.S.R. and the United States created the biggest nuclear missile
arsenals, but after objectively recognizing their responsibility, they were able to be the first to
conclude an agreement on the reduction and physical destruction of a proportion of these
weapons, which threatened both themselves and everyone else
http://www.coldwarfiles.org/files/Documents/1988-1107.Gorbachev.pdf
25
Document #7
“Tear Down this Wall.”
Remarks at the Brandenburg Gate – President Ronald Reagan
West Berlin, Germany
June 12, 1987







Why does Reagan say he is drawn to Berlin?
What has the Berlin wall represented since it was erected?
How has West Berlin changed since 1947, according to Reagan? Why does he
emphasize these changes?
How does he describe life in Eastern Europe by comparison?
What changes does he say are happening in Eastern Europe?
What does Reagan hope will happen as a result of his speech?
To what extent are the language and ideas expressed in Winston Churchill’s “The
Sinews of Peace” speech reflected in this document of the Cold War period?
This speech was delivered to the people of West Berlin, yet it was also audible on the East
side of the Berlin wall.
Thank you very much.
Chancellor Kohl, Governing Mayor Diepgen, ladies and gentlemen: Twenty-four years ago,
President John F. Kennedy visited Berlin, speaking to the people of this city and the world at the
City Hall. Well, since then two other presidents have come, each in his turn, to Berlin. And today
I, myself, make my second visit to your city.
We come to Berlin, we American presidents, because it's our duty to speak, in this place, of
freedom. But I must confess, we're drawn here by other things as well: by the feeling of history in
this city, more than 500 years older than our own nation; by the beauty of the Grunewald and the
Tiergarten; most of all, by your courage and determination. Perhaps the composer Paul Lincke
understood something about American presidents. You see, like so many presidents before me, I
come here today because wherever I go, whatever I do: Ich hab noch einen Koffer in Berlin. [I still
have a suitcase in Berlin.]
Our gathering today is being broadcast throughout Western Europe and North America. I
understand that it is being seen and heard as well in the East. To those listening throughout
Eastern Europe, a special word: Although I cannot be with you, I address my remarks to you just
as surely as to those standing here before me. For I join you, as I join your fellow countrymen in
the West, in this firm, this unalterable belief: Es gibt nur ein Berlin. [There is only one Berlin.]
Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of
barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe. From the Baltic, south, those barriers cut
across Germany in a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers. Farther south,
there may be no visible, no obvious wall. But there remain armed guards and checkpoints all the
same--still a restriction on the right to travel, still an instrument to impose upon ordinary men and
women the will of a totalitarian state. Yet it is here in Berlin where the wall emerges most clearly;
here, cutting across your city, where the news photo and the television screen have imprinted this
brutal division of a continent upon the mind of the world. Standing before the Brandenburg Gate,
26
every man is a German, separated from his fellow men. Every man is a Berliner, forced to look
upon a scar.
President von Weizsacker has said, "The German question is open as long as the Brandenburg
Gate is closed." Today I say: As long as the gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is
permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of
freedom for all mankind. Yet I do not come here to lament. For I find in Berlin a message of hope,
even in the shadow of this wall, a message of triumph.
In this season of spring in 1945, the people of Berlin emerged from their air-raid shelters to find
devastation. Thousands of miles away, the people of the United States reached out to help. And
in 1947 Secretary of State--as you've been told--George Marshall announced the creation of what
would become known as the Marshall Plan. Speaking precisely 40 years ago this month, he said:
"Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty,
desperation, and chaos."
In the Reichstag a few moments ago, I saw a display commemorating this 40th anniversary of the
Marshall Plan. I was struck by the sign on a burnt-out, gutted structure that was being rebuilt. I
understand that Berliners of my own generation can remember seeing signs like it dotted
throughout the western sectors of the city. The sign read simply: "The Marshall Plan is helping
here to strengthen the free world." A strong, free world in the West, that dream became real.
Japan rose from ruin to become an economic giant. Italy, France, Belgium--virtually every nation
in Western Europe saw political and economic rebirth; the European Community was founded.
In West Germany and here in Berlin, there took place an economic miracle, the
Wirtschaftswunder. Adenauer, Erhard, Reuter, and other leaders understood the practical
importance of liberty--that just as truth can flourish only when the journalist is given freedom of
speech, so prosperity can come about only when the farmer and businessman enjoy economic
freedom. The German leaders reduced tariffs, expanded free trade, lowered taxes. From 1950 to
1960 alone, the standard of living in West Germany and Berlin doubled.
Where four decades ago there was rubble, today in West Berlin there is the greatest industrial
output of any city in Germany--busy office blocks, fine homes and apartments, proud avenues,
and the spreading lawns of parkland. Where a city's culture seemed to have been destroyed,
today there are two great universities, orchestras and an opera, countless theaters, and
museums. Where there was want, today there's abundance--food, clothing, automobiles--the
wonderful goods of the Ku'damm. From devastation, from utter ruin, you Berliners have, in
freedom, rebuilt a city that once again ranks as one of the greatest on earth. The Soviets may
have had other plans. But my friends, there were a few things the Soviets didn't count on-Berliner Herz, Berliner Humor, ja, und Berliner Schnauze. [Berliner heart, Berliner humor, yes,
and a Berliner Schnauze.]
In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: "We will bury you." But in the West today, we see a free
world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history.
In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of
health, even want of the most basic kind--too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot
feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and
inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds
among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.
And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance
of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some
political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being
27
jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from
state control.
Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures,
intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it?
We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that
the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the
Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of
freedom and peace.
General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate!
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
I understand the fear of war and the pain of division that afflict this continent-- and I pledge to you
my country's efforts to help overcome these burdens. To be sure, we in the West must resist
Soviet expansion. So we must maintain defenses of unassailable strength. Yet we seek peace;
so we must strive to reduce arms on both sides.
Beginning 10 years ago, the Soviets challenged the Western alliance with a grave new threat,
hundreds of new and more deadly SS-20 nuclear missiles, capable of striking every capital in
Europe. The Western alliance responded by committing itself to a counter-deployment unless the
Soviets agreed to negotiate a better solution; namely, the elimination of such weapons on both
sides. For many months, the Soviets refused to bargain in earnestness. As the alliance, in turn,
prepared to go forward with its counter-deployment, there were difficult days--days of protests like
those during my 1982 visit to this city--and the Soviets later walked away from the table.
But through it all, the alliance held firm. And I invite those who protested then-- I invite those who
protest today--to mark this fact: Because we remained strong, the Soviets came back to the table.
And because we remained strong, today we have within reach the possibility, not merely of
limiting the growth of arms, but of eliminating, for the first time, an entire class of nuclear weapons
from the face of the earth.
As I speak, NATO ministers are meeting in Iceland to review the progress of our proposals for
eliminating these weapons. At the talks in Geneva, we have also proposed deep cuts in strategic
offensive weapons. And the Western allies have likewise made far-reaching proposals to reduce
the danger of conventional war and to place a total ban on chemical weapons.
While we pursue these arms reductions, I pledge to you that we will maintain the capacity to deter
Soviet aggression at any level at which it might occur. And in cooperation with many of our allies,
the United States is pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative--research to base deterrence not on
the threat of offensive retaliation, but on defenses that truly defend; on systems, in short, that will
not target populations, but shield them. By these means we seek to increase the safety of Europe
and all the world. But we must remember a crucial fact: East and West do not mistrust each other
because we are armed; we are armed because we mistrust each other. And our differences are
not about weapons but about liberty. When President Kennedy spoke at the City Hall those 24
years ago, freedom was encircled, Berlin was under siege. And today, despite all the pressures
upon this city, Berlin stands secure in its liberty. And freedom itself is transforming the globe.
In the Philippines, in South and Central America, democracy has been given a rebirth.
Throughout the Pacific, free markets are working miracle after miracle of economic growth. In the
industrialized nations, a technological revolution is taking place--a revolution marked by rapid,
dramatic advances in computers and telecommunications.
28
In Europe, only one nation and those it controls refuse to join the community of freedom. Yet in
this age of redoubled economic growth, of information and innovation, the Soviet Union faces a
choice: It must make fundamental changes, or it will become obsolete.
Today thus represents a moment of hope. We in the West stand ready to cooperate with the East
to promote true openness, to break down barriers that separate people, to create a safe, freer
world. And surely there is no better place than Berlin, the meeting place of East and West, to
make a start. Free people of Berlin: Today, as in the past, the United States stands for the strict
observance and full implementation of all parts of the Four Power Agreement of 1971. Let us use
this occasion, the 750th anniversary of this city, to usher in a new era, to seek a still fuller, richer
life for the Berlin of the future. Together, let us maintain and develop the ties between the Federal
Republic and the Western sectors of Berlin, which is permitted by the 1971 agreement.
And I invite Mr. Gorbachev: Let us work to bring the Eastern and Western parts of the city closer
together, so that all the inhabitants of all Berlin can enjoy the benefits that come with life in one of
the great cities of the world.
To open Berlin still further to all Europe, East and West, let us expand the vital air access to this
city, finding ways of making commercial air service to Berlin more convenient, more comfortable,
and more economical. We look to the day when West Berlin can become one of the chief aviation
hubs in all central Europe.
With our French and British partners, the United States is prepared to help bring international
meetings to Berlin. It would be only fitting for Berlin to serve as the site of United Nations
meetings, or world conferences on human rights and arms control or other issues that call for
international cooperation.
There is no better way to establish hope for the future than to enlighten young minds, and we
would be honored to sponsor summer youth exchanges, cultural events, and other programs for
young Berliners from the East. Our French and British friends, I'm certain, will do the same. And
it's my hope that an authority can be found in East Berlin to sponsor visits from young people of
the Western sectors.
One final proposal, one close to my heart: Sport represents a source of enjoyment and
ennoblement, and you may have noted that the Republic of Korea--South Korea--has offered to
permit certain events of the 1988 Olympics to take place in the North. International sports
competitions of all kinds could take place in both parts of this city. And what better way to
demonstrate to the world the openness of this city than to offer in some future year to hold the
Olympic games here in Berlin, East and West? In these four decades, as I have said, you
Berliners have built a great city. You've done so in spite of threats--the Soviet attempts to impose
the East-mark, the blockade. Today the city thrives in spite of the challenges implicit in the very
presence of this wall. What keeps you here? Certainly there's a great deal to be said for your
fortitude, for your defiant courage. But I believe there's something deeper, something that
involves Berlin's whole look and feel and way of life--not mere sentiment. No one could live long
in Berlin without being completely disabused of illusions. Something instead, that has seen the
difficulties of life in Berlin but chose to accept them, that continues to build this good and proud
city in contrast to a surrounding totalitarian presence that refuses to release human energies or
aspirations. Something that speaks with a powerful voice of affirmation, that says yes to this city,
yes to the future, yes to freedom. In a word, I would submit that what keeps you in Berlin is love-love both profound and abiding.
Perhaps this gets to the root of the matter, to the most fundamental distinction of all between East
and West. The totalitarian world produces backwardness because it does such violence to the
spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, to worship. The totalitarian world finds
29
even symbols of love and of worship an affront. Years ago, before the East Germans began
rebuilding their churches, they erected a secular structure: the television tower at Alexander
Platz. Virtually ever since, the authorities have been working to correct what they view as the
tower's one major flaw, treating the glass sphere at the top with paints and chemicals of every
kind. Yet even today when the sun strikes that sphere--that sphere that towers over all Berlin--the
light makes the sign of the cross. There in Berlin, like the city itself, symbols of love, symbols of
worship, cannot be suppressed.
As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed
words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner: "This wall will fall.
Beliefs become reality." Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it
cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom.
And I would like, before I close, to say one word. I have read, and I have been questioned since
I've been here about certain demonstrations against my coming. And I would like to say just one
thing, and to those who demonstrate so. I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they
should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what
they're doing again.
Thank you and God bless you all.
Note: The President spoke at 2:20 p.m. at the Brandenburg Gate. In his opening remarks, he
referred to West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. Prior to his remarks, President Reagan met
with West German President Richard von Weizsacker and the Governing Mayor of West Berlin
Eberhard Diepgen at Schloss Bellevue, President Weizsacker's official residence in West Berlin.
Following the meeting, President Reagan went to the Reichstag, where he viewed the Berlin Wall
from the East Balcony.
http://www.reaganlibrary.com/reagan/speeches/wall.asp
30