This was not what Alan Wilson said on his own, but because the United States could not say it on its own and used the British to formally block the way for the Soviet Union to join the Marshall Plan.
He was just following the American script, but the difference was that as a tool, he also had emotions. When Alan Wilson spoke, his hostility towards the Soviet Union was extremely obvious. It was simply Churchill himself speaking.
Speech.
It also expressed distrust of Yugoslavia, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Finland. Of course, this should not be too straightforward to express the attitude of wanting to kick these four countries out. We must pay attention to methods and methods in doing things.
Therefore, Finland, the soft persimmon among these four countries, was selected by Alan Wilson to focus on criticism. There are two main reasons for choosing Finland. First, Finland is not a country under the Soviet system, and it is relatively easy to criticize.
The second is that although Finland is not a country under the Soviet system, it is currently submissive to the Soviet Union, so it is more suitable to be used as a target. Sacrificing it can also show the solemn position of the British Empire and pretend that it is still very influential.
"Finlandization is a fate that all free countries in Europe must try their best to avoid." Alan Wilson shouted loudly, explaining in sincere words to representatives of many countries that they must protect their sovereignty and not be taken away by the Soviets.
Finlandization refers to the policy decisions of a weak country that obeys the orders of a powerful neighbor with almost no bottom line. It is basically a derogatory term. It is similar to the relationship between Finland and the Soviet Union.
Although this term was invented by conservatives in the Federal Republic of Germany after Brandt came to power to prevent Brandt's Eastern Policy. It was still early for it to appear, but it was not unreasonable for Alan Wilson to say it at this time, "Manner"
Why Heim left Finland is something that all countries in the free world should be wary of."
In the next half hour, Alan Wilson violently criticized the Soviet Union for its Finlandization. The most direct evidence was that Mannerheim was forced to leave Finland.
If he had a choice, Alan Wilson wouldn't want to rub salt into Finland's wounds specifically.
But other countries are all allies of the Soviet Union, and anyone with a discerning eye can see that. How can someone like him, who bullies the weak and fears the strong, really dare to imitate Churchill and point fingers at countries with the Soviet system? So Finland can only suffer.
After focusing on Finland for half an hour, as for the Soviet Union, including countries with similar systems, they are all in the ranks of countries such as...
Alan Wilson, who appeared to be a defender of the free world, but was actually a tough-tempered person, walked off the stage amidst the applause of most countries. This also set the tone for the rejection of Eastern Europe.
The United States' aid is not unlimited. Just as what we said before when we adopted a common position with the French, the more countries that receive aid, the less the amount will be for each country.
Therefore, after Alan Wilson's speech, French representative Pierre also strongly expressed his agreement with the British proposition. Not only must he exclude the four Eastern European countries that came to Paris this time, he must also determine whether the remaining countries are reliable.
Pierre targeted Italy, saying that the situation in Italy is very worrying. The Italian Communist Party is already the largest party in Italy. If Italy becomes a Soviet-style country, it should also be removed from the aid countries.
"The French may have forgotten that the strength of the French Communist Party is only a little bit worse than that of the Italian Communist Party." When Pierre was speaking, Alan Wilson covered his mouth and secretly followed the colleague next to him to connotate France, "If Italy cannot
If you believe it, you won’t be able to trust France.”
"Then shall we revise the French's opinion? Express reservations?" asked the note-taker next to him.
"No, we firmly agree with the French attitude. Anyway, it was the French who rejected Italy in the first place. We in the UK are not responsible." Alan Wilson solemnly shook his head and said, "We just agree with the French opinion."
Pierre's criticism of Italy was actually just incidental. In his subsequent speech, he showed that France's attitude can be summarized as Germany's aid amount should be reduced or even not given.
For the countries participating in the meeting, this meeting is undoubtedly a brainstorming. It is not easy to adapt to the remarks of representatives of other countries without being self-defeating.
In response to France's remarks advocating restrictions on Germany, representatives from the Netherlands and Belgium spoke out against it.
The relationship between the Netherlands and Belgium and Germany is quite complicated, although they both participated in the war against Germany.
But it does not advocate restricting Germany's development. It is not that Belgium and the Netherlands have also learned the British mistakes and played continental balance.
But Belgium and the Netherlands have long had close economic ties with Germany. If Germany can prosper, the two countries can also take a ride. Luxembourg also supports Belgium and the Netherlands.
As for the attitude towards Italy, because Italy does not border the country and the three countries have no sympathetic economic ties, they did not say anything.
The three countries opposed restrictions on the German economy. Alan Wilson supported France from another angle. Citing the Italian Communist Party, the largest party in Italy, as the reason, he said that the results of the Italian election should be used as the criterion for whether to provide aid to Italy.
"We respect democracy the most. If the Italian Communist Party comes to power in the Italian election, it means that the Italians have made their choice." Alan Wilson spat, "The entire free world is paying attention. If a disgraceful leader cannot be elected, it means that the Italians have made their choice."
Without convinced parties, the aid plan cannot proceed."
The members of the American delegation looked at each other and quite appreciated the British statement, which was actually the case.
The Marshall Plan itself was to prevent Europe from falling into the arms of the Soviet Union. Now it seems that Britain and the United States have a consensus on this point. Although it is a bit straightforward to say this, it is actually the case.
If the Communist Party of Italy were in power in Italy, Italy would definitely not have a share in the Marshall Plan.
Alan Wilson and Pierre Le Mans, on behalf of Britain and France, launched an attack on Italy, which made the Italian representative so angry that they sarcastically said on the spot, "It's as if you and the two countries have the final say in aid from the Americans."
"Members of the Axis Powers are not qualified to use such despicable means to split the friendship between the Allies." Alan Wilson tilted his neck and sneered, "Italy should compensate for the losses caused by the consumption of British troops in the prisoner of war camps."
"The blood of Britain and the United States is thicker than water, and other countries cannot make irresponsible remarks."
Members of the British delegation stood up one after another and made personal attacks on the Italian representatives, saying that Italy was fortunate to be on the side of the Axis and therefore contributed to the Allies' victory.
"Otherwise, Italy will dance with the Soviet Union. At least this way we will know who is right and who is wrong in the choices related to the future destiny of mankind." Alan Wilson said, his voice rising an octave, "Victory is inevitable.
will belong to the free world."
The hall instantly became noisy. As for whether it was wise to unite France to attack Italy and whether it would push Italy into the embrace of the Soviet Union, Alan Wilson was not very worried about this.
To put it bluntly, don't think that there are no US troops in Italy. Even if the Italian Communist Party really wins the election, the United States does not need to recognize it. As long as the United States does not recognize it, the United Kingdom will not recognize it and directly start military intervention mode.
If in the 1950s and 1960s, when all countries had emerged from war and entered a period of prosperity, if they had interfered in the internal affairs of a large European country and carried out a military invasion, Europe might have exploded, but now? Even having enough to eat
The question is, who cares whether the Italians are seeking their own death? How can there be any soil for a white left without a material foundation?
While Britain, France and Italy were blaming each other, connoting, and ridiculing each other, the American delegation was also whispering, commenting on the behavior of the country where the meeting was held, "Is this what many people in the country think of as European civilization? Look at what it looks like now."
"A bunch of beggars with only the clothes on their backs and bright clothes, look at this picture, blaming each other, insulting and ridiculing each other for the amount of aid."
At this point, Americans had to speak up to stop the debate, but they did not say who was right or wrong.
Next, it was the Swedes' turn to express their stance. The Swedes had a simple attitude. They wanted assistance from the United States, but they did not want to change their neutral status. They reservedly expressed their intention to stand still and make money.
World War II did not affect Sweden. Sweden has always adhered to the principle of armed neutrality and avoided joining any military alliances. This has even had an impact on the history of the United States.
During the American War of Independence, France and Spain declared war on Britain on the side of the United States; at the same time, initiated by Imperial Russia, European countries such as Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Prussia, and Portugal formed an armed neutrality alliance to jointly use naval power to escort merchant ships and safeguard the rights of neutral countries.
The armed neutrality at that time was actually a show of solidarity with the independence of the United States. Since then, Sweden has never participated in any military alliance.
The first meeting ended in a chaotic environment. The attitudes of the countries were not consistent. France opposed aid to Germany and Italy, and Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg opposed France's proposal to limit German aid.
The British partially agreed with France, saying that Italy's country was unstable and should not waste money. It also partially agreed with France's position that the allies should naturally receive more than the Axis members.
The Nordic countries, represented by Sweden, hope to stand still and make money, and Britain and France maintain the same stance on Eastern European countries. Alan Wilson also used the first Finnish term to express that Eastern European countries are not trustworthy.
After the meeting, all countries at the meeting, including the United States, contacted the country to discuss solutions.
At the same time, countries with similar stances began to exchange information and form national groups. London, Paris, Rome, and Moscow, which seemed to have no relationship, were all discussing countermeasures.