We with friends, and with all country in addition, have a custom on the eve of New year to watch "Twist of fate", and on the eve of the Victory Day - "Seventeen moments of spring". This custom was established long ago and doesn't indulge still.
The laconic, verified directionTatyana Lioznovaand masterly actor's workTikhonova, Armored, Tabakovaetc. make impression of reliability, almost that documentations. One my familiar American even got after viewing the book about World War II and began to search for Stierlitz in structure of Imperial management of safety …
It was necessary to explain to the naive foreigner thatMax Otto von Stierlitz, itMaxim Maksimovich Isayev, itVsevolod Vladimirovich Vladimirov, it is synthesized from three real persons. From the officer of counterintelligence of GestapoWillie Lehman(it served under supervision ofWalter Schellenberg) from the serving ministry of aircraft of a ReichHarro Schultz - Bolzena("mister Bolzen" - Stierlitz's operational pseudonym) and the modest owner of the Swiss cartographical bureauShandora Rado(it broke negotiationsHimmlerwith the western allies).
But one more person who has no bases to be called as the fictional hero and who, on a whim of the author, and is, in fact, Stierlitz's main opponent is brightly shown in the movie. No, it not "daddy"Müllerin Leonid Bronevy's charming treatment. Real Müller, by the way, is absolutely not similar to him. And here make-up of the actorVyacheslav Shalevichit is executed almost portrait, and insinuating, reminding Stalin, the manner to tell, move and smoke a pipe makes impression of relevancy and danger of this character. Well, certainly, you guessed - it is a question of the resident of the American investigation in SwitzerlandAlain Dulles. This cold, cynical, analytical mind, this readiness for resolute actions in a name of "rescue of European civilization" even contrary to a course of the president - not an invention.In any case, probably, thanks to these qualities Dulles not only reforms subsequently bulky and not too effective American intelligence services, and becomes thus "founding father" of the Central Intelligence Service of the USA, no, it will go further away.
It is remembered, how in the period of reorganization waste, along with inconsistent reformismGorbachevand more and more obvious desertionYeltsin, from the circle of the demoralized communists group "staunch Bolsheviks"was allocatedIvana Polozkova. Also there was at them in a great demand a theory about somebody the artful plan of destruction of the Soviet Union as which author Alain Dulles was called just. The text of this artful plan passed from hand to hand, causing sincere indignation "all honest people" the promise "to corrupt young generation" and "to change ideals". But whether it too reminded clumsy promotion, whether grains of an anti-Americanism fell then on rigid stones of national mistrust, but only left nothing at polozkovets with an omrachneniye "light image" America in the opinion of the Soviet people.
But today, when already finally clearly, what to merge in ecstasy with the West at the former Soviet Union (except for Baltic, certainly) it doesn't turn out in any way now, in the near future, it appeared that the plan (more true, the memorandum) Dulles at all an invention. This extremely curious document was apparently declassified and emerged in work of the American historiansThomas Ettsold and John Gaddis"Containment: Documents on American Policy and Strategy 1945-1950". From the thirty-page text follows that extended by polozkovets and, later, vitrenkovets "Dulles's plan" - a forgery. And still follows that the American policy of a post-war time was under construction rather Soviet Union on the basis of the complete concept which hasn't lost in some aspects of the value and today.
The memorandum was created for data of the top political management of the USA. It contained a message about "naturalness" of the American leadership and about need of the most resolute actions against "the Russian threat" and as for the first time I formulated the idea which has received the late name of "cold war". Yet there was no NATO,moreChurchillI didn't deliver the well-known speech in Fultona, and Dulles already writes that business should be run as if war is inevitable. Only such approach will rally the West and will give necessary prerequisites for specific actions.But that is characteristic, between the states Dulles considers all difficult complex of relationship through a prism of the relations with traditional Russia, instead of with communistic ideology. Besides, from the concept of the opponent Stierlitz follows that "free world" shouldn't assume responsibility for in-Russian development" and quite could leave in power even communists, on condition of Rossi's compulsion to execution of a number of requirements. And business at all in altruism or in a lack of determination. Dulles directly specifies: "That we resort to such policy which can entail such outcome (war) at all doesn't mean that we choose a course on war …". It appears, the military solution of a question is undesirable in connection with too big expenses. And further: "… It can be realized skillful use of our economic power, a straight line and indirect information activities". What those indispensable requirements which would relieve the Soviet Union of military confrontation with America were?
a) "Russia won't possess big military power (read - it won't be able to be protected);
b) will depend economically strongly on world around (read - from America);
c) won't possess too big power over ethnic minorities (read - it won't be capable to resist to disintegration);
d) won't establish anything reminding "Iron Curtain", concerning contacts with the outside world (read - a full disclosure for external influence);
And what anticommunism? Dulles writes: "In case of the mode which is hostile to communists and in a friendly way to us, we, undoubtedly, have to take care of that the way with which these conditions will be provided, wasn't offensive or humiliating …" That is, consequences are anyway identical to Russia. Only in case of establishment of an anti-communistic mode the enema will be delivered "in inoffensive" to a form. What a pity that Boris Yeltsin didn't read this document!
How to be with West policy concerning ethnic minorities? Oh, it was assumed to be very differentiated. So unconditionally the right for independence of the Baltic states admits. Concerning Ukraine the following is told: "Ukrainians - the most developed from the people which are under control of Russia now. As a whole they are offended by the Russian domination;their nationalist organizations are abroad active, to them listen …
But there is a number of essential nuances of which it is impossible to lose sight. While Ukrainians were an important and essential element of the Russian Empire, they didn't show any signs of the nation capable successfully and responsibly to bear burden of independence before the person of the strongest Russian counteraction. Ukraine isn't accurately certain ethnic or geographical concept …
Real basis of "ukrainizm" are "differences" of a specific Ukrainian dialect and a small difference in customs and folklore … Observed political propaganda is, generally business of several romantically adjusted intellectuals who have not enough idea of responsibility of public administration.
The economy of Ukraine is indissolubly weaved with economy of Russia into a whole. Never was anybody economic division since the territory was won from nomadic Tatars … Moreover, the people speaking on the Ukrainian dialect, as well as the people speaking on the Belarusian dialect, are split by sign which in Eastern Europe always was an original sign of a nationality, namely - religion".
Here so, neither it is more, nor it is less. It appears, the political management of States from giving of sovy investigation already then was convinced that Ukrainians are divided into "two nations" by the religious principle that "… They are too close to Russians to manage to be organized successfully independently in something absolutely excellent …"
And our political beau monde still is surprised, whyBush - the seniorduring the visit to Kiev persuaded to remain Ukraine as a part of the Union! However, Alain Dulles makes a reservation: "If without our participation in the territory of Ukraine there is an independent mode, we shouldn't counteract it directly … Such mode will be constantly exposed to checks on durability from Russia … On the other hand, we shouldn't connect ourselves support of their such line of conduct which probably can be kept further only with our military help". As it is a pity that this memorandum didn't readVictor Andreevich Yushchenko!
The international policy 90-x years and, actually, today, abounds with decisions which can't be understood without appeal to time layers much older. Yes, for the last 60 years approach of the United States to our country underwent evolution as the whole world underwent evolution.But only presently with crash "a campaign for three seas for democracy" the presidentBush - youngerthere were first shy signs of recomprehension of those bases, that foundation which was laid secretly the memorandum by Alain Dulles.