Stalin in Missouri

Very often the significance of events in retrospect is quite different from that attached to them at the time. Take Winston Churchill's famous "iron curtain" speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri in 1946, for example. As Clark Clifford observed decades later, "The Fulton speech is now treated as revelation and prophecy, a turning point in the evolution of policy and popular understanding of the Soviet threat." *Counsel to the President*, p. 107. But Clifford went on to note that editorial and public comment at the time was actually for the most part hostile. Of course nobody would be surprised that a left-wing magazine like *The Nation* would complain that Churchill had "added a sizeable measure of poison to the already deteriorating relations between Russia and the Western powers." But criticism of Churchill was by no means confined to the Left. The *Wall Street Journal* rejected Churchill's proposal of a closer relationship between the US and the UK, saying that "the United States wants no alliance or anything that resembles an alliance with any other nation." (In general, newspaper coverage focused more on Churchill's call for closer Anglo-American cooperation than on his use of the term "iron curtain" or his characterization of the Soviet Union.) Pearl Buck, then one of the most popular writers in the US, told an audience that the world was "nearer war tonight than we were last night."

According to Clifford, Truman's own reactions were mixed: he admired the speech but was not yet ready to embrace its message. "On the one hand, he recognized the power and insight of Churchill's speech and Kennan's Long Telegram; on the other, he still harbored the hope that some sort of agreement with Stalin would be possible." He told reporters he had not read Churchill's speech in advance; and he sent Stalin a message saying that he still held out hope for better relations. He even issued an invitation to Stalin to make a similar speech in Missouri "for exactly the same kind of reception" and said that he would introduce Stalin personally as he did Churchill.

Stalin of course declined the invitation, but here is my question: What if he had accepted? Yes, that would have been totally out of character for the security-conscious Stalin--he was extremely reluctant to travel to anywhere outside the USSR, even somewhere as close as Teheran. (For that matter, he didn't do that much traveling *within* the USSR, either, except from the Kremlin to a few dachas.) But let's just say he does accept and does go to Missouri and speaks there (through an interpreter, of course). Consequences? Obviously one cannot see Stalin clowning around with Midwestern farmers like Khrushchev in 1959, but what kind of impression would he make?
 
Stalin tries to drink Truman under the table ... Vodka vs Scotch ..
or was Truman not a person to take a brewski ???
 
Stalin never went to an area he did not control. Even when he went to Tehran, we must remember that half of Persia was occupied by the Red Army, and the actual conference itself was held in the Soviet Union's embassy. Stalin wouldn't even leave the Soviet Union in 1945 to meet with FDR and Churchill even though it was obvious FDR was not a well man. There is absolutely no way Stalin would leave the Soviet Union to go half way around the world to give a speech in the heartland of the country he saw as his primary opponent. I could see Stalin sending Molotov or someone else to give a rebuttal speech.

Stalin wasn't known for his speech writer or giving ability. Even his few famous war speeches don't display a mastery of rhetoric. His best known quotes display a boring minutiae of Marxist rhetoric, devastating insults, and simple language attacking his opponents. His speeches were never designed to convince others, certainly not people outside the narrow confines of Communist Party leadership intrigue. He was fine with interpersonal give or take, or sending ominous directives to his minions. I don't see him giving any kind of speech that would move American public opinion. The traditional useful idiots would love it, but I think he'd probably alarm the United States anymore.

Stalin gave a rebuttal in Pravda to Churchill's speech. If we use that as the model of the speech he'd give in Fulton, he'd defend Soviet actions as necessary to stop another invasion. He would accuse Churchill as being a warmonger. I don't think that would go down well. If reporters were able to ask questions afterwards, I think Stalin would come off even worse. He was not used to being questioned or to defend his actions. His only response was to attack and insult. He would probably destroy most of the remaining goodwill in the US towards the Soviet Union.
 
Consequences? Obviously one cannot see Stalin clowning around with Midwestern farmers like Khrushchev in 1959, but what kind of impression would he make?

I'm pretty sure Stalin coming at all would be seen as a major deal. Particularly for the administration, who KNEW Stalin was a paranoid SOB.

I think even if the speech itself was awful, the mere fact that it happened would have a big effect.

I am inclined to think that the Cold War was nearly inevitable though.

The more interesting thing to ponder for me is WHY would Stalin go to Missouri? As others have outlined, it would be far, far outside the man's character.

fasquardon
 
Top