Analysis of Ukraine war and forgotten words of Stalin on Imperialism
Analysis of war in Ukraine seems to be largely done with ready-made conclusions such as “imperialist war we do not take sides”, “war is a continuation of Policy in different forms”. These are generally correct statements but not formulas. Especially the latter determines the attitude to the former. The question to be asked and the answer to that question should be studied is: “what kind of policy” each belligerent country was following domestically and internationally, militarily prior to the given war and historically. Without this thorough study the analysis will not be objective but subjective, and thus not a Marxist Leninist one.
Other than the recent history, economies, and military industry, domestic and foreign policy of (directly or indirectly involved) the belligerent countries, we have used the following articles and fundamentals for any analysis stated below, together with the history of second world war from the books 1) Falsificators of History 2) Diplomatic Battles Before World WarII. Both are available in HTML format on the blog. We hope that it will be helpful to understand the grave issue at hand.
2-Fundamentals and Stalin’s conclusive approach to 2nd
WW
“We are revolutionary Marxist-Leninists, and we
always start out from a correct scientific analysis of the economic
and political situation and of the tendencies of its development. We repudiate
all subjectivism and its arbitrariness in appraising
the objective situation.”
“If we, as Marxists, repudiate subjectivism, it
is not because we regard ourselves as the slaves of objective
development. No, we regard ourselves as the active revolutionary instrument
of history for accelerating the victory of the proletariat.”
Report by O.W. Kuusinen, From 13th Plenum of ECCI
“Abstract theoretical reasoning may
lead to the conclusion at which Kautsky has arrived—in a somewhat different
fashion but also by abandoning Marxism.
It goes without saying that there can be no
concrete historical assessment of the current war, unless it is
based on a thorough analysis of the nature of imperialism, both in its
economic and political aspects. Otherwise, it would be impossible to arrive at
a correct understanding of the economic and diplomatic history of the last few
decades without which it would be ridiculous to expect to work out a
correct view of the war. From the standpoint of Marxism, which states most
definitely the requirements of modern science on this question in general, one
can merely smile at the “scientific” value of such methods as
taking the concrete historical assessment of the war to mean a random
selection of facts which the ruling classes of the country find
gratifying or convenient, facts taken at random from diplomatic “documents”,
current political developments, etc… The scientific concept of
imperialism, moreover, is reduced to a sort of term of
abuse applied to the immediate competitors, rivals, and opponents of
the two imperialists mentioned, each of whom holds exactly the same class
position as his rivals and opponents!” Lenin, Preface to N. Bukharin’s
Pamphlet, Imperialism, and the World Economy
“The character of a war and its success
depend chiefly upon the internal regime of the country that
goes to war, that war is a reflection of the internal policy conducted
by the given country before the war. “Lenin, Address To The Second
All-Russia Congress Of Communist Organisations Of The Peoples of The East
“In the political sphere the imperialist
war has demonstrated that from the imperialists’ standpoint it is
sometimes much more advantageous to have as war ally a
politically independent but financially dependent small nation...” (Lenin,
Theses for an Appeal to the International Socialist Committee and All Socialist
Parties) And the “defense of
fatherland” for these type of “small countries, too, cannot” be
claimed, supported “ in imperialist wars,” (Lenin To: G. Y.
Zinoviev)
“As for the first part of Mr. President's speech
concerning the war in the Pacific Area, we can say the following: We
Russians welcome the successes that have been and are being scored by
the Anglo-American forces in the Pacific.” Stalin, The Tehran Conference
1943
Articles
3-Speech Delivered at the Fifth-Union Conference of the
All-Union Leninist Young Communist League
Stalin
March 31, 1927
(Extract)
Permit me now to pass to the second question—that of
the Nanking events. I think that the Nanking events should not have come as a
surprise to us. Imperialism cannot live without violence and robbery,
without bloodshed and shooting. That is the nature of imperialism. The
events in Nanking cannot, therefore, be a surprise to us.
What do the Nanking events indicate?
What is their political meaning?
They indicate a turn in the policy of imperialism, a
turn from armed peace to armed war against the Chinese people.
Before the Nanking events, imperialism
endeavored to hide its intentions by unctuous talk about peace and
non-interference in the domestic affairs of other countries, by a mask
of “civilisation” and “humanitarianism,” the League of Nations and so forth.
After the Nanking events, imperialism is discarding its unctuous
speeches, its talk of non-intervention, the League of Nations and all the
other masks. Now imperialism stands exposed to the eyes of the world in all its
nakedness as an avowed plunderer and oppressor.
Bourgeois pacifism has sustained another telling blow. For
what, indeed, have those who sing the praises of imperialist pacifism,
such as the Boncours, the Breitscheids and others, to oppose the fact
of the massacre of Nanking inhabitants except their false pacifist talk? The
League of Nations has been given another slap in the face. For whom but lackeys
of imperialism can consider it “normal” that one member of the League
of Nations massacres the citizens of another member, while the League
of Nations itself is compelled to keep silent and assume that the matter does
not concern it?
It is now proved that our Party was right when it
assessed the dispatch of troops to Shanghai by the imperialist countries as the
prelude to armed attacks on the Chinese people. For one must be blind not
to see now that imperialism needed troops in Shanghai in order to pass
from “words” to “deeds.”
Such is the meaning of the Nanking events.
4-Interview Between J. Stalin and Roy Howard
March 1, 1936
(Extract)
Stalin : History shows that when any state intends
to make war against another state, even not adjacent, it begins
to seek for frontiers across which it can reach the frontiers of the
state it wants to attack, usually, the aggressive state finds such
frontiers.
It either finds them with the aid of force, as
was the case in 1914 when Germany invaded Belgium in order to strike at France,
or it "borrows" such a frontier, as Germany, for example, did
from Latvia in 1918, in her drive to Leningrad. I do not know precisely what
frontiers Germany may adapt to her aims, but I think she will find people
willing to "lend" her a frontier.
Howard : Seemingly, the entire world today is
predicting another great war. If war proves inevitable, when, Mr. Stalin, do
you think it will come?
Stalin : It is impossible to predict that. War
may break out unexpectedly. Wars are not declared, nowadays. They simply start.
On the other hand, however, I think the positions of the friends of peace
are becoming stronger. The friends of peace can work openly. They rely on
the power of public opinion. They have at their command instruments like the
League of Nations, for example. This is where the friends of peace have the
advantage. Their strength lies in the fact that their activities against war
are backed by the will of the broad masses of the people. There is not a
people in the world that wants war. As for the enemies of peace, they are
compelled to work secretly. That is where the enemies of peace are at a
disadvantage. Incidentally, it is not precluded that precisely because of this
they may decide upon a military adventure as an act of desperation.
One of the latest successes the friends of peace have
achieved is the ratification of the Franco-Soviet Pact of Mutual Assistance by
the French Chamber of Deputies. To a certain extent, this pact is an obstacle
to the enemies of peace.
Howard : Should war come, Mr. Stalin, where is it most
likely to break out? Where are the war clouds the most menacing, in the East or
in the West?
Stalin : In my opinion there are two seats of war
danger. The first is in the Far East, in the zone of Japan. I have
in mind the numerous statements made by Japanese military men containing
threats against other powers. The second seat is in the zone of Germany.
It is hard to say which is the most menacing, but both exist and are active.
Compared with these two principal seats of war danger, the
Italian-Abyssinian war is an episode. At present, the Far Eastern seat of
danger reveals the greatest activity. However, the centre of this danger may
shift to Europe. This is indicated, for example, by the interview which
Herr Hitler recently gave to a French newspaper. In this interview Hitler seems
to have tried to say peaceful things, but he sprinkled his
"peacefulness" so plentifully with threats against both France and
the Soviet Union that nothing remained of his "peacefulness." You
see, even when Herr Hitler wants to speak of peace he cannot avoid uttering
threats. This is symptomatic.
5- Report to the 18th Congress of the (B.) on the work of the Central Committee
Report on the Work of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth
Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.)
Stalin
(Delivered March 10, 1939.)
1. The Soviet Union and International
Comrades, five years have elapsed since the
Seventeenth Party Congress. No small period, as you see.
During this period the world has undergone
considerable changes. States and countries, and their mutual relations, are now
in many respects totally altered.
What changes exactly have taken place in the
international situation in this period? In what way exactly have the
foreign and internal affairs of our country changed?
For the capitalist countries this period was one of
very profound perturbations in both the economic and political spheres. In
the economic sphere these were years of depression, followed, from the
beginning of the latter half of 1937, by a period of new economic crisis, of a new
decline of industry in the United States, Great Britain and France;
consequently, these were years of new economic complications. In the political
sphere they were years of serious political conflicts and perturbations. A new
imperialist war is already in its second year, a war waged over a huge
territory stretching from Shanghai to Gibraltar and involving over five hundred
million people. The map of Europe, Africa and Asia is being forcibly redrawn.
The entire post-war system, the
so-called regime of peace, has been shaken to its foundations.
For the Soviet Union, on the contrary, these were
years of growth and prosperity, of further economic and cultural progress, of
further development of political and military might, of struggle for the
preservation of peace throughout the world.
Such is the general picture.
Let us now examine the concrete data illustrating
the changes in the international situation.
1. New Economic Crisis in the Capitalist Countries, Intensification
of the Struggle for Markets and Sources of Raw Material, and for a New
Redivision of the World.
The economic crisis which broke out in the capitalist
countries in the latter half of 1929 lasted until the end of 1933. After
that the crisis passed into a depression, and was then followed by a certain
revival, a certain upward trend of industry. But this upward trend of industry
did not develop into a boom, as is usually the case in a period of revival. On
the contrary, in the latter half of 1937 a new economic crisis began which
seized the United States first of all and then England, France and a number
of other countries.
The capitalist countries thus found themselves
faced with a new economic crisis before they had even recovered from the
ravages of the recent one.
This circumstance naturally led to an increase of
unemployment. The number of unemployed in capitalist countries, which had
fallen from thirty million in 1933 to fourteen million in 1937, has now again
risen to eighteen million as a result of the new economic crisis.
A distinguishing feature of the new crisis is that it
differs in many respects from the preceding one, and,
moreover, differs for the worse and not for the better.
Firstly, the new crisis did not begin after an industrial
boom, as was the case in 1929, but after a depression and a certain revival,
which, however, did not develop into a boom. This means that the present crisis
will be more severe and more difficult to cope with than the previous crisis.
Further, the present crisis has broken out not in time of
peace, but at a time when a second imperialist war has already begun;
at a time when Japan, already in the second year of her war with China,
is disorganizing the immense Chinese market and rendering it almost inaccessible
to the goods of other countries; when Italy and Germany have already
placed their national economy on a war footing, squandering their
reserves of raw material and foreign currency for this purpose; and when all
the other big capitalist powers are beginning to reorganize
themselves on a war footing. This means that capitalism will have far less
resources at its disposal for a normal way out of the present crisis than
during the preceding crisis.
Lastly, as distinct from the preceding crisis, the
present crisis is not a general one, but as yet involves chiefly the
economically powerful countries which have not yet placed themselves on
a war economy basis. As regards the aggressive countries, such as Japan,
Germany and Italy, who have already reorganized their economy on a war
footing, they, because of the intense development of their war industry,
are not yet experiencing a crisis of overproduction, although they are
approaching it. This means that by the time the economically powerful,
non-aggressive countries begin to emerge from the phase of crisis the
aggressive countries, having exhausted their reserves of gold and raw material
in the course of the war fever, are bound to enter a phase of very severe
crisis.
There can be no doubt that unless
something unforeseen occurs, German industry must enter the same downward
path as Japan and Italy have already taken. For what does placing the
economy of a country on a war footing mean? It means giving industry a
one-sided war direction; developing to the utmost the production of goods
necessary for war and not for consumption by the population; restricting to the
utmost the production and, especially, the sale of articles of general
consumption - and, consequently, reducing consumption by the population and
confronting the country with an economic crisis.
Such is the concrete picture of the trend of the new
economic crisis in the capitalist countries.
Naturally, such an unfavourable turn of economic
affairs could not but aggravate relations among the powers. The preceding
crisis had already mixed the cards and intensified the struggle for markets and
sources of raw materials. The seizure of Manchuria and North China by Japan,
the seizure of Abyssinia by Italy - all this reflected the acuteness of the
struggle among the powers. The new economic crisis must lead, and is actually
leading, to a further sharpening of the imperialist struggle. It is no
longer a question of competition in the markets, of a commercial war, of
dumping. These methods of struggle have long been recognized as inadequate.
It is now a question of a new redivision of the world, of spheres of
influence and colonies, by military action.
Japan tried to justify her aggressive actions by the
argument that she had been cheated when the Nine-Power Pact was concluded and
had not been allowed to extend her territory at the expense of China, whereas
Britain and France possess vast colonies. Italy recalled that she had been
cheated during the division of the spoils after the first imperialist war and
that she must recompense herself at the expense of the spheres of influence
of Britain and France. Germany, who had suffered severely as a result of
the first imperialist war and the Peace of Versailles, joined forces with Japan
and Italy, and demanded an extension of her territory in Europe and the return
of the colonies of which the victors in the first imperialist war had deprived
her.
Thus, the bloc of three aggressive states came to be
formed.
A new redivision of the world by means of war became
imminent.
2-Aggravation of the International Political
Situation. Collapse of the Post-War System of Peace Treaties.
Beginning of a New Imperialist War.
Here is a list of the most important events during the
period under review which marked the beginning of a new imperialist war.
In 1935 Italy attacked and seized Abyssinia. In the summer of 1936
Germany and Italy organized military intervention in Spain, Germany
entrenching itself in the north of Spain and in Spanish Morocco, and Italy in
the south of Spain and in the Balearic Islands. In 1937, having seized
Manchuria, Japan invaded North and Central China, occupied Peking, Tientsin
and Shanghai and began to oust its foreign competitors from the occupied zone.
In the beginning of 1938 Germany seized Austria, and in the autumn of
1938 the Sudeten region of Czechoslovakia. At the end of 1938 Japan seized
Canton, and at the beginning of 1939 the Island of Hainan.
Thus the war, which has stolen so imperceptibly upon
the nations, has drawn over 500 million people into its orbit and has extended
its sphere of action over a vast territory, stretching from Tientsin, Shanghai
and Canton, through Abyssinia, to Gibraltar.
After the first imperialist war the victor states,
primarily Britain, France and the United States, set up a new regime in the
relations between countries, the post-war peace regime. The main props of this
regime were the Nine-Power Pact in the Far East, and the Versailles and a
number of other treaties in Europe. The League of Nations was set up to
regulate relations between countries within the framework of this regime, on
the basis of a united front of states, of collective defence of the security of
states. However, three aggressive states, Japan tore up the
Nine-Power Pact, and Germany and Italy the Versailles Treaty, and the new
imperialist war launched by them, upset the entire system of this post-war
peace regime. In order to have their hands free, these three states
withdrew from the League of Nations.
The new imperialist war became a fact.
It is not so easy in our day suddenly to break loose
and plunge straight into war without regard for treaties of any kind or for
public opinion. Bourgeois politicians know this quite well. So do the fascist
rulers. That is why the fascist rulers decided, before plunging into war, to
mould public opinion to suit their ends, that is, to mislead it, to deceive it.
A
military bloc of Germany and Italy against the interests of Britain and France
in Europe? Bless us, do you call that a bloc? "We" have no military
bloc. All "we" have is an innocuous "Berlin-Rome axis";
that is, just a geometrical equation for an axis. (Laughter.)
A
military bloc of Germany, Italy and Japan against the interests of the United
States, Britain and France in the Far East? Nothing of the kind! "We"
have no military bloc. All "we" have is an innocuous
"Berlin-Rome-Tokyo triangle"; that is, a slight penchant for
geometry. (General laughter.)
A war
against the interests of Britain, France, the United States? Nonsense!
"We" are waging war on the Comintern, not on these states. If you
don't believe it, read the "anti-Comintern pact" concluded between
Italy, Germany and Japan.
That is how Messieurs the aggressors thought to mould
public opinion, although it was not hard to see how preposterous
this clumsy game of camouflage was; for it is ridiculous to look for
Comintern "hotbeds" in the deserts of Mongolia, in the mountains of
Abyssinia, or in the wilds of Spanish Morocco. (Laughter.)
But war is inexorable. It
cannot be hidden under any guise. For no "axes,"
"triangles" or "anti-Comintern pacts" can hide the fact
that in this period Japan has seized a vast stretch of territory in China, that
Italy has seized Abyssinia, that Germany has seized Austria and the Sudeten region,
that Germany and Italy together have seized Spain -- and all this in defiance
of the interests of the non-aggressive states. The war remains a war; the
military bloc of aggressors remains a military bloc; and the aggressors remain
aggressors.
It is a distinguishing feature of the new imperialist
war that it has not yet become a universal, a world war. The war is
being waged by aggressor states, who in every way infringe upon the
interests of the non-aggressive states, primarily Britain, France, and the
U.S.A., while the latter draw back and retreat, making concession after
concession to the aggressors.
Thus we are witnessing an open redivision of the world
and spheres of influence at the expense of the non-aggressive states,
without the least attempt at resistance, and even with a certain
connivance, on their part.
Incredible, but true.
To what are we to attribute this one-sided and
strange character of the new imperialist war?
How is it that the non-aggressive countries,
which possess such vast opportunities, have so easily and without resistance abandoned
their positions and their obligations to please the aggressors?
Is it to be attributed to the weakness of the
non-aggressive states? Of course not! Combined, the non-aggressive, democratic
states are unquestionably stronger than the fascist states, both economically
and militarily.
To what then are we to attribute the systematic
concessions made by these states to the aggressors?
It might be attributed, for example, to the fear that
a revolution might break out if the non-aggressive states were to go to war and
the war were to assume world-wide proportions. The bourgeois politicians know,
of course, that the first imperialist world war led to the victory of the
revolution in one of the largest countries. They are afraid that a second
imperialist world war may also lead to the victory of the revolution in one or
several countries.
But at present this is not the sole or even the
chief reason. The chief reason is that the majority of the
non-aggressive countries, particularly Britain and France, have rejected
the policy of collective security, the policy of collective resistance to
aggressors, and have taken up a position of non-intervention, a position
of "neutrality."
Formally speaking, the policy of non-intervention
might be defined as follows:
"Let each country defend itself against the
aggressors as it likes and as best it can. That is not our affair We shall
trade both with the aggressors and with their victims."
But actually speaking, the
policy of non-intervention means conniving at aggression, giving free
rein to war, and, consequently, transforming the war into a world war.
The policy of non-intervention reveals an eagerness, a desire, not to hinder
the aggressors in their nefarious work: not to hinder Japan, say, from
embroiling itself in a war with China, or better still, with the Soviet Union;
not to hinder Germany, say, from enmeshing itself in European affairs, from
embroiling itself in a war with the Soviet Union; to allow all the belligerents
to sink deeply into the mire of war, to encourage them surreptitiously in this;
to allow them to weaken and exhaust one another; and then, when they
have become weak enough, to appear on the scene with fresh strength, to appear,
of course, "in the interests of peace," and to dictate conditions to
the enfeebled belligerents.
Cheap and easy!
Take Japan, for instance. It is characteristic that
before Japan invaded North China all the influential French and British
newspapers shouted about China's weakness and its inability to offer resistance and declared that Japan with its army could subjugate China in two
or three months. Then the European and American politicians began to watch and
wait. And then, when Japan commenced military operations, they let it have
Shanghai, the vital centre of foreign capital in China; they let it have
Canton, a centre of Britain's monopoly influence in South China; they let it
have Hainan, and they allowed it to surround Hongkong. Does not this look very
much like encouraging the aggressor? It is as though they were saying:
"Embroil yourself deeper in war; then we shall see."
Or take Germany, for instance. They let it have
Austria, despite the undertaking to defend its independence; they let it have
the Sudeten region; they abandoned Czechoslovakia to her fate, thereby
violating all their obligations; and then they began to lie vociferously in the
press about "the weakness of the Russian army," "the demoralization
of the Russian air force," and "riots" in the Soviet Union,
egging on the Germans to march farther east, promising them easy pickings, and
prompting them: "Just start war on the Bolsheviks, and everything will be
all right." It must be admitted that this too looks very much like egging
on and encouraging the aggressor.
The hullabaloo raised by the British, French and
American press over the Soviet Ukraine is characteristic. The gentlemen of the
press there shouted until they were hoarse that the Germans were marching on
the Soviet Ukraine, that they now had what is called the Carpathian Ukraine,
with a population of some 700,000 and that not later than this spring the
Germans would annex the Soviet Ukraine, which has a population of over 30
million, to this so-called Carpathian Ukraine. It looks as if the object of
this suspicious hullabaloo were to incense the Soviet Union against Germany, to
poison the atmosphere and to provoke a conflict with Germany without any
visible grounds.
It is quite possible, of course, that there are madmen
in Germany who dream of annexing the elephant, that is, the Soviet Ukraine, to
the gnat, namely, the so-called Carpathian Ukraine. If there really are such
lunatics in Germany, rest assured that we shall find enough strait jackets for
them in our country. (Thunderous applause.) But if we ignore the madmen and
turn to normal people, is it not clearly absurd and foolish seriously to talk
of annexing the Soviet Ukraine to this so-called Carpathian Ukraine? Imagine:
the gnat comes to the elephant and says perkily: "Ah, brother, how sorry I
am for you. . . . Here you are without any landlords, without any capitalists,
with no national oppression, without any fascist bosses. Is that a way to live?
. . . I look at you and I can't help thinking that there is no hope for you
unless you annex yourself to me. . . . (General laughter.) Well, so be it: I
allow you to annex your tiny domain to my vast territories. . . ."
(General laughter and applause.)
Even more characteristic is the fact that certain
European and American politicians and pressmen, having lost patience waiting
for "the march on the Soviet Ukraine," are themselves beginning to
disclose what is really behind the policy of non-intervention. They are
saying quite openly, putting it down in black on white, that the Germans
have cruelly "disappointed" them; for instead of marching farther
east, against the Soviet Union, they have turned, you see, to the west and are
demanding colonies. One might think that the districts of Czechoslovakia were
yielded to Germany as the price of an undertaking to launch war on the Soviet
Union, but that now the Germans are refusing to meet their bills and are
sending them to Hades.
Far be it from me to moralize on the policy of
non-intervention, to talk of treason, treachery and so on. It would be
naïve to preach morals to people who recognize no human morality.
Politics are politics, as the old, case-hardened bourgeois diplomats say. It
must be remarked, however, that the big and dangerous political game started
by the supporters of the policy of non-intervention may end in serious
fiasco for them.
Such is the true face of the now prevailing policy of
non-intervention.
Such is the political situation in the capitalist
countries.
6-Answers to Associated Press Moscow Correspondent'sQuestions
Stalin
October 3, 1942
Dear Mr. Cassidy,
Owing to pressure of work and consequent inability to
grant you an interview, I shall confine myself to a brief written answer to
your questions.
(1) QUESTION:
What place does the possibility of a Second Front occupy in Soviet
estimates of the current situation?
ANSWER: A very important place:
one might say a place of first-rate importance.
(2) QUESTION:
To what extent is Allied aid to the Soviet Union proving effective, and
what could be done to amplify and improve this aid?
ANSWER: As compared with the aid
which the Soviet Union is giving to the Allies by drawing upon itself the main
forces of the German-fascist armies, the aid of the Allies to the Soviet Union
has so far been little effective. In order to amplify and improve this aid only
one thing is required: that the Allies fulfil their obligations completely and
on time.
(3) QUESTION:
What remains of the Soviet capacity for resistance?
ANSWER: I think that the Soviet capacity for
resisting the German brigands is in strength not a whit less, if not greater,
than the capacity of fascist Germany, or of any other aggressive Power, to
secure for itself world domination.
With respects,
(Signed) J. Stalin.
7-The Allied Campaign in Africa Answers to Associated
Press Moscow Correspondent
Stalin
November 13, 1942
Dear Mr. Cassidy—
I am answering your questions which reached me on
November 12.
(1) QUESTION:
What is the Soviet view of the Allied campaign in Africa?
ANSWER: The
Soviet view of this campaign is that it represents an outstanding fact of major
importance, demonstrating the growing might of the armed forces of the Allies
and opening the prospect of the disintegration of the Italy-German coalition in
the nearest future.
The campaign in Africa refutes once more the sceptics
who affirm that the Anglo-American leaders are not capable of organizing a
serious military campaign. There can be no doubt that only first-rate
organizers could carry out such important military operations as the successful
landings in North Africa across the ocean, as the rapid occupation of harbours
and wide territories from Casablanca to Bougie, and as the smashing of the
Italy-German armies in the Western Desert, effected with such mastery.
(2) QUESTION:
How effective has this campaign been in relieving pressure on the Soviet
Union, and what further aid does the Soviet Union await?
ANSWER: It is
yet too soon to say to what extent this campaign has been effective in
relieving immediate pressure on the Soviet Union, but it may confidently be
said that the effect will not be a small one, and that a certain relief in
pressure on the Soviet Union will result in the nearest future.
But this is not the only thing that matters. What
matters, first of all, is that, since the campaign in Africa means that the
initiative has passed into the hands of our Allies, this campaign radically
changes the military and political situation in Europe in favour of the Anglo-Soviet-American
coalition. It undermines the prestige of Hitlerite Germany as the leading force
in the system of Axis powers and demoralizes Hitler’s allies in Europe. It
releases France from her state of lethargy, mobilizes the anti-Hitler forces of
France and provides a basis for the organization of an anti-Hitler French army.
It creates conditions for putting Italy out of commission and for isolating
Hitlerite Germany. Finally, it creates the prerequisites for the organization
of a second front in Europe nearer to Germany’s vital centres, which will be of
decisive importance for organizing victory over the Hitlerite tyranny.
(3) QUESTION:
What possibility is there of the Soviet offensive power in the East
joining the Allies in the West to hasten final victory?
ANSWER: There
need be no doubt that the Red Army will fulfil its task with honour, as it has
been fulfilling it throughout the whole war.
With respects,
(Signed) J. Stalin
November 13, 1942
8-Polish-Soviet Relations, Answers to The Times and New
York Times Correspondent
Stalin
May 4, 1943
DEAR MR. PARKER,
On May 3 I received your two questions concerning
Polish-Soviet relations. Here are my answers:
QUESTION 1:
Does the Government of the U.S.S.R. desire to see a strong and
independent Poland after the defeat of Hitlerite Germany?
ANSWER:
Unquestionably, it does.
QUESTION 2: On
what fundamentals is it your opinion that relations between Poland and the
U.S.S.R. should be based after the war?
ANSWER: Upon
the fundamentals of solid good neighbourly relations and mutual respect or should the Polish people so desire upon the fundamentals of alliance providing
for mutual assistance against the Germans as the chief enemies of the Soviet
Union and Poland.
With respect,
(Signed) J. Stalin
May 4, 1943
9-Cables to Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt on the North
African Victory
Stalin
May 7, 1943
To the Prime Minister, Mr. Winston Churchill, London,
I congratulate you and the valiant British and
American troops on the brilliant victory which has resulted in the
liberation of Bizerta and Tunis from Hitler’s tyranny. I wish you further
successes.
J. Stalin
To President Roosevelt, Washington,
I congratulate you and the valiant American and
British troops on the brilliant victory which has resulted in the liberation of
Bizerta and Tunis from Hitler’s tyranny. I wish you further successes.
J. Stalin
10-Stalin’s Reply to the Union of Polish Patriots
June 17, 1943
"I thank you for your warm and friendly message to
the Soviet Government. I warmly greet you and the Union of Polish Patriots in
the U.S.S.R., who have begun the successful work of uniting your forces and
strengthening the friendship between the peoples of Poland and the Soviet
Union.
"You can be sure that the Soviet Union will do
all that is possible in order to speed the defeat of our common enemy,
Hitlerite Germany, to strengthen Polish-Soviet friendship, and by every
possible means to aid the creation of a strong and independent Poland.
"I wish you success in your work."
11-On the Allied Landing in Northern France
Stalin
June 13, 1944
In answer to a Pravda correspondent, who asked how he
evaluated the landing of Allied forces in northern France, Marshal Stalin gave
the following reply:
In summing up the seven days’ fighting by the Allied
liberation forces in the invasion of northern France, it may be said without
hesitation that the large-scale forcing of the Channel and the mass landing of
Allied forces in the north of France have been completely successful. This is
undoubtedly a brilliant success for our Allies.
One cannot but acknowledge that the history of war
knows no other similar undertaking as regards breadth of design, vastness of
scale and high skill of execution.
As is known, the “invincible” Napoleon, in his time,
disgracefully failed in his plan of forcing the Channel and capturing the
British Isles. The hysterical Hitler, who for two years boasted that he would
affect the forcing of the Channel, did not even venture to make an attempt to
carry out his threat. Only the British and American troops succeeded in
carrying out with credit the vast plan of forcing the Channel and effecting the
mass landing of troops.
History will record this deed as an achievement of the
highest order.
12-The Question of Peace and Security
Stalin
From the; Speech at Celebration Meeting of the Moscow
Soviet of Working People’s Deputies and Moscow Party and Public Organizations
November 6, 1944
The past year has been a year of triumph of the common
cause of the anti-German coalition for the sake of which the peoples of the
Soviet Union, Great Britain and the United States of America have united in
fighting alliance. It has been a year of consolidation of the unity of the
three main Powers and of co-ordination of their actions against Hitler Germany.
The decision of the Teheran Conference on joint
actions against Germany and the brilliant realization of that decision are
one of the striking indications of the consolidation of the front of the anti-Hitler
Coalition. There are few instances in history of plans for large-scale military
operations undertaken in joint actions against a common enemy being
carried out so fully and with such precision as the plan for a joint blow
against Germany drawn up at the Teheran Conference.
There can be no doubt that without unity of opinion
and co-ordination of actions of the three Great Powers, the Teheran decision
could not have been realized so fully and with such precision. Nor on the other
hand can there be any doubt that the successful realization of the Teheran
decision was bound to serve to consolidate the front of the United Nations.
An
equally striking indication of the solidity of the front of the United Nations
is to be seen in the decisions of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference on post-war
security. There is talk of differences between the three Powers on certain
security problems. Differences do exist, of course, and they will arise
on a number of other issues as well. Differences of opinion occur even among
people in one and the same Party. They are all the more bound to occur between
representatives of different States and different Parties. The surprising thing
is not that differences exist, but that they are so few, and that as a rule in
practically every case they are resolved in a spirit of unity and coordination
among the three Great Powers. What matters is not that there are differences,
but that these differences do not transgress the bounds of what the interests
of the unity of the three Great Powers allow, and that, in the long run, they
are resolved in accordance with the interests of that unity. It is known that
more serious differences existed between us over the opening of the Second
Front. But it is also known that in the end these differences were resolved in
a spirit of complete accord. The same thing may be said of the differences at
the Dumbarton Oaks Conference. What is characteristic of this Conference is not
that certain differences were revealed there, but that nine-tenths of the security
problems were solved at this Conference in a spirit of complete unanimity. That
is why I think that the decisions of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference are to be
regarded as a striking indication of the solidity of the front of the
anti-German Coalition.
A still more striking indication of the consolidation
of the front of the United Nations are the recent talks in Moscow with Mr.
Churchill, the head of the British Government, and Mr. Eden, the British
Foreign Secretary, held in an atmosphere of friendship and a spirit of perfect
unanimity.
Throughout the war the Hitlerites have made frantic
efforts to cause disunity among the United Nations and set them at
loggerheads, to stir up suspicion and unfriendly feeling among them, to weaken
their war effort by mutual distrust, and, if possible, by conflict between them
as well. These ambitions of the Hitlerite politicians are easy enough to
understand. For them there is no greater danger than the unity of the United
Nations in the struggle against Hitlerite imperialism, and for them there would
have been no greater military and political success than the splitting of the
Allied Powers in their struggle against the common enemy. It is known, however,
how futile the efforts of the fascist politicians to disrupt the alliance of
the Great Powers have proved. That means that the alliance between the
U.S.S.R., Great Britain and the United States of America is founded not on
casual, transitory considerations, but on vital and lasting interests.
There can be no doubt that, having stood the strain of
more than three years of war and being sealed with the blood of the nation's risen in defence of their liberty and honour, the fighting alliance of the
democratic powers will all the more certainly stand the strain of the concluding
phase of the war. (Prolonged applause.)
The past year, however, has been not only a year of
consolidation of the anti-German front of the Allied Powers, but also a year of
its extension. It cannot be considered an accident that after Italy other
allies of Germany—Finland, Rumania and Bulgaria—were also put out of the war.
It should be noted that these States not only got out of the war but broke with
Germany and declared war on her, thus joining the front of the United Nations.
This signifies, undoubtedly, an extension of the front of the United Nations
against Hitler Germany. Without doubt Germany’s last ally in Europe, Hungary,
will also be put out of action in the nearest future. This will mean the
complete isolation of Hitler Germany in Europe and the inevitability of her
collapse.
The United Nations face the victorious conclusion of
the war against Hitler Germany.
The war against Germany will be won by the United
Nations—of that there can no longer be any doubt to-day.
To win the war against Germany is to accomplish a
great historic task. But to win the war does not in itself
mean to ensure for the peoples a lasting peace and guaranteed security
in the future. The task is not only to win the war but also to make new
aggression and new war impossible—if not for ever, then at least for a long
time to come.
After her defeat Germany will, of course, be disarmed,
both in the economic and in the military political sense. It would, however, be
naïve to think that she will not attempt to restore her might and launch new
aggression. It is common knowledge that the German chieftains are already now
preparing for a new war. History shows that a short period—some 20 or 30
years—is enough for Germany to recover from defeat and re-establish her might.
What means are there to preclude fresh aggression on Germany’s part, and if war
should start nevertheless, to nip it in the bud and give it no opportunity to
develop into a big war?
This question is the more appropriate since history
shows that aggressor nations, the nations which attack, are usually better
prepared for a new war than peace-loving nations which, having no interest in a
new war, are usually behindhand with their preparations for it. It is
a fact that in the present war the aggressor nations had an army of invasion
all ready even before the war broke out—while the peace-loving nations did not
even have adequate armies to cover their mobilization. One cannot regard as an
accident such distasteful facts as the Pearl Harbour “incident,” the loss of the
Philippines and other Pacific Islands, the loss of Hong Kong and Singapore,
when Japan, as the aggressor nation, proved to be better
prepared for war than Great Britain and the United States of America, which
pursued a policy of peace. Nor can one regard as an accident such a
distasteful fact as the loss of the Ukraine, Byelorussia and the Baltics in the
very first year of the war, when Germany, as the aggressor nation, proved
better prepared for war than the peace-loving Soviet Union. It would be naïve
to explain these facts by the personal qualities of the Japanese and the
Germans, their superiority over the British, the Americans and the Russians,
their foresight, etc. The reason here is not personal qualities but the fact
that aggressor nations, interested in a new war, being nations
that prepare for war over a long time and accumulate forces for it, usually
are, and are bound to be, better prepared for war than peace-loving nations
which have no interest in a new war. That is natural and understandable. This
is, if you like, a law of history, which would be dangerous to ignore.
Accordingly, it is not to be denied that in the future
the peace-loving nations may once more find themselves caught off guard by
aggression unless, of course, they work out special measures right now which
can avert it.
Well, what means are there to preclude fresh aggression
on Germany’s part and, if war should start nevertheless, to stifle it at
its very beginning and give it no opportunities to develop into a big war?
There is only one means to this end, apart
from the complete disarmament of the aggressor nations: that is to
establish a special organization made up of representatives of the peace-loving
nations for the defence of peace and safeguarding of security; to put at the disposal
of the directing body of this organization the necessary minimum of armed
forces required to avert aggression, and to oblige this organization to employ
these armed forces without delay if it becomes necessary, to avert or stop
aggression, and to punish those guilty of aggression.
This must not be a repetition of the sad memory of the
League of Nations, which had neither the right nor the means to avert
aggression. It will be a new, special, fully authorized international
organization having at its command everything necessary to defend peace and
avert new aggression.
Can we expect the actions of this world organization
to be sufficiently effective? They will be effective if the great Powers which
have borne the brunt of the war against Hitler Germany continue to act in a
spirit of unanimity and accord. They will not be effective if this essential
condition is violated.
Comrades!
The Soviet people and the Red Army are successfully
executing the tasks which have confronted them in the course of the Patriotic
War. The Red Army has worthily fulfilled its patriotic duty and liberated our
Motherland from the enemy: henceforth and forever our soil is free of the
Hitlerite pollution. Now remains its last, final mission: to complete, together
with the armies of our Allies, the defeat of the German-fascist army, to
finish off the fascist beast in its own den, and to hoist the flag of victory
over Berlin. (Loud and prolonged applause). There is reason to expect
that this task will be fulfilled by the Red Army in the none too distant
future. (Loud and prolonged applause.)
Long live our victorious Red Army! (Applause.)
Long live our glorious Navy! (Applause.)
Long live the mighty Soviet people! (Applause.)
Long live our great Motherland! (Loud applause, all
stand.)
Death to the German-fascist invaders! (Loud and
prolonged applause, shouts of “Long live Comrade Stalin!”)
13- Stalin's address to the people -1945
September 2, 1945
'Pravda', No. 211, September 8, 1945
Comrades! Fellow countrymen and countrywomen!
Today, September 2, political and military representatives of Japan signed an act of unconditional surrender. Utterly defeated and surrounded on all sides on sea and land by the armed forces of the United Nations; Japan has admitted defeat and has laid down her arms.
Two hotbeds of world fascism and world aggression had been formed on the eve of the present World War: Germany in the West and Japan in the East. It was they who unleashed the Second World War. It was they who brought mankind and civilization to the brink of doom. The hotbed of world aggression in the West was destroyed four months ago and, as a result, Germany was forced to capitulate. Four months later the hotbed of aggression in the East was destroyed and as a result of which, Japan, Germany's principal ally, was also compelled to sign an act of capitulation.
This means the end of the Second World War has come.
Now we can say that the conditions necessary for peace all over the world have been gained.
It must be observed that the Japanese aggressors inflicted damage not only on our Allies - China, the U.S.A. and Great Britain. They also inflicted extremely grave damage on our country. That is why we have a separate account to settle with Japan.
Japan commenced her aggression against our country as far back as 1904, during the Russo -Japanese War. As we know, in February 1904, when negotiations between Japan and Russia were still proceeding, Japan, taking advantage of the weakness of the tsarist government, suddenly and perfidiously, without declaring war, fell upon our country and attacked the Russian fleet in the region of Port Arthur with the object of putting several Russian warships out of action and thereby creating an advantageous position for her fleet. She did, indeed, put out of action three Russian first-class warships. It is characteristic that 37 years later Japan played exactly the same perfidious trick against the United States when, in 1941, she attacked the United States naval base in Pearl Harbour and put several American battleships out of action. As we know, in the war against Japan, Russia was defeated. Japan took advantage of the defeat of tsarist Russia to seize from Russia the southern part of Sakhalin and establish herself on the Kuril Islands, thereby putting the lock on all our country's outlets to the ocean in the East, which also meant all outlets to the ports of Soviet Kamchatka and Soviet Chukotka. It was obvious that Japan was aiming to deprive Russia of the whole of her Far East.
But this does not exhaust the list of Japan's aggressive operations against our country. In 1918, after the Soviet system was established in our country, Japan, taking advantage of the hostility then displayed towards the Land of the Soviets by Great Britain, France and the United States, and leaning upon them, again attacked our country, occupied the Far East and for four years tormented our people and looted the Soviet Far East.
Nor is this all. In 1938 Japan attacked our country again, in the region of Lake Hasan, near Vladivostok, with the object of surrounding Vladivostok; and in the following year Japan repeated her attack in another place, in the region of the Mongolian People's Republic, near Khalkin-gol, with the object of breaking into Soviet territory, severing our Siberian Railway, and cutting off the Far East from Russia.
True, Japan's attacks in the regions of Hasan and Khalkin-gol were liquidated by the Soviet troops, to the extreme humiliation of the Japanese. Japanese military intervention in 1918-1922 was liquidated with equal success and Japanese invaders were expelled from our Far Eastern regions. But the defeat of the Russian troops in 1904 during the Russo-Japanese War left bitter memories in the minds of our people. It lay like a black stain on our country. Our people believed in and waited for the day when Japan would be defeated, and the stain would be wiped out. We of the older generation waited for this day for forty years, and now this day has arrived. Today Japan admitted defeat and signed an act of unconditional surrender.
This means that the southern part of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands revert to the Soviet Union and henceforth will serve not as a barrier between the Soviet Union and the ocean and as a base for Japanese attack upon our Far East but as a direct means of communication between the Soviet Union and the ocean and a base for the defense of our country against Japanese aggression.
Our Soviet people spared neither strength nor labor for the sake of victory. We experienced extremely hard years. But now every one of us can say: We have won. Henceforth we can regard our country as being free from the menace of German invasion in the West and of Japanese invasion in the East. The long-awaited peace for the peoples of all the world has come.
I congratulate you, my dear fellow countrymen and countrywomen, on this great victory, on the successful termination of the war, and on- the ushering in of peace all over the world!
Glory to the armed forces of the Soviet Union, the United States of America, China, and Great Britain which achieved victory over Japan!
Glory to our Far Eastern troops and our Pacific Fleet, which upheld the honor and dignity of our country!
Glory to our great people, the victorious people!
Eternal glory to the heroes who fell fighting for the honor and victory of our country! May our country flourish and prosper!
14- Interview to “Pravda” Correspondent Concerning Mr.
Winston Churchill’s Speech at Fulton
Stalin
March 1946
Question: How do you appraise Mr. Churchill’s latest
speech in the United States of America?
Answer: I appraise it as a dangerous act, calculated
to sow the seeds of dissension among the Allied States and impede their
collaboration.
Question: Can it be considered that Mr. Churchill’s
speech is prejudicial to the cause of peace and security?
Answer: Yes, unquestionably. As a matter of fact,
Mr. Churchill now takes the stand of the warmongers, and in this Mr. Churchill
is not alone. He has friends not only in Britain but in the United
States of America as well.
A point to be noted is that in this respect Mr. Churchill
and his friends bear a striking resemblance to Hitler and his friends.
Hitler began his work of unleashing war by proclaiming a race theory,
declaring that only German-speaking people constituted a superior nation. Mr.
Churchill sets out to unleash war with a race theory, asserting that
only English-speaking nations are superior nations, who are called upon to
decide the destinies of the entire world. The German race theory led Hitler and
his friends to the conclusion that the Germans, as the only superior nation,
should rule over other nations. The English race theory leads Mr. Churchill and
his friends to the conclusion that the English-speaking nations, as the only
superior nations, should rule over the rest of the nations of the world.
Actually, Mr. Churchill, and his friends in Britain
and the United States, present to the non-English speaking nations something in
the nature of an ultimatum: “Accept our rule voluntarily, and then all will
be well; otherwise, war is inevitable.”
But the nations shed their blood in the course of five
years’ fierce war for the sake of the liberty and independence of their
countries, and not in order to exchange the domination of the Hitlers for the domination
of the Churchills. It is quite probable, accordingly, that the
non-English-speaking nations, which constitute the vast majority of the
population of the world, will not agree to submit to a new slavery.
It is Mr. Churchill’s tragedy that, inveterate Tory
that he is, he does not understand this simple and obvious truth.
There can be no doubt that Mr. Churchill’s position
is a war position, a call for war on the U.S.S.R. It is also clear that
this position of Mr. Churchill’s is incompatible with the Treaty of Alliance
existing between Britain and the U.S.S.R. True, Mr. Churchill does say, in
passing, in order to confuse his readers, that the term of the Anglo-Soviet
Treaty of Mutual Assistance and Collaboration might quite well be extended to 50
years. But how is such a statement on Mr. Churchill’s part to be reconciled
with his position of war on the U.S.S.R., with his preaching of War against
the U.S.S.R.? Obviously, these things cannot be reconciled by any means
whatever. And if Mr. Churchill, who calls for war on the Soviet Union, at the
same time considers it possible to extend the term of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty
to 50 years, that means that he regards this Treaty as a mere scrap of paper,
which he only needs in order to disguise and camouflage his anti-Soviet
position. For this reason, the false statements of Mr. Churchill’s friends in
Britain, regarding the extension of the term of the Anglo-Soviet treaty to 50
years or more, cannot be taken seriously. Extension of the Treaty term
has no point if one of the parties violates the Treaty and converts it into a
mere scram of paper.
Question: How do you appraise the part of Mr.
Churchill’s speech in which he attacks the democratic systems in the European
States bordering upon us, and criticizes the good-neighbourly relations
established between these States and the Soviet Union.
Answer: This part of Mr. Churchill’s speech is
compounded of elements of slander and elements of discourtesy and tactlessness.
Mr. Churchill asserts that “Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade,
Bucharest, Sofia—all these famous cities and the populations around them lie
within the Soviet sphere and are all subject in one form or another not only to
Soviet influence, but to a very high and increasing measure of control from
Moscow.” Mr. Churchill describes all this as “unlimited expansionist
tendencies” on the part of the Soviet Union.
It needs no particular effort to show that in this Mr.
Churchill grossly and unceremoniously slanders both Moscow, and the above-named
States bordering on the U.S.S.R.
In the first place it is quite absurd to speak of
exclusive control by the U.S.S.R. in Vienna and Berlin, where there are Allied Control
Councils made up of the representatives of four States and where the U.S.S.R. has
only one-quarter of the votes. It does happen that some people cannot help in
engaging in slander. But still, there is a limit to everything.
Secondly, the following circumstance should not be
forgotten. The Germans made their invasion of the U.S.S.R. through Finland,
Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary. The Germans were able to make their
invasion through these countries because, at the time, governments hostile to
the Soviet Union existed in these countries. As a result of the German invasion
the Soviet Union has lost irretrievably in the fighting against the Germans,
and also through the German occupation and the deportation of Soviet citizens
to German servitude, a total of about seven million people. In other words, the
Soviet Union’s loss of life has been several times greater than that of Britain
and the United States of America put together. Possibly in some quarters an
inclination is felt to forget about these colossal sacrifices of the Soviet
people which secured the liberation of Europe from the Hitlerite yoke. But the
Soviet Union cannot forget about them. And so what can there be surprising
about the fact that the Soviet Union, anxious for its future safety, is trying
to see to it that governments loyal in their attitude to the Soviet Union should
exist in these countries? How can anyone, who has not taken leave of his wits,
describe these peaceful aspirations of the Soviet Union as expansionist
tendencies on the part of our State?
Mr. Churchill claims further that the
“Russian-dominated Polish Government has been encouraged to make enormous,
wrongful inroads in Germany.”
Every word of this is a gross and insulting calumny.
Outstanding men are at the helm in present democratic Poland. They have proved
by their deeds that they are capable of upholding the interests and dignity of
their country as their predecessors were not. What grounds has Mr. Churchill to
assert that the leaders of present-day Poland can countenance in their country
the domination of representatives of any foreign State whatever? Is it not
because Mr. Churchill means to sow the seeds of dissension in the relations
between Poland and the Soviet Union that he slanders “the Russians” here?
Mr. Churchill is displeased that Poland has faced
about in her policy in the direction of friendship and alliance with the
U.S.S.R. There was a time when elements of conflict and antagonism predominated
in the relations between Poland and the U.S.S.R. This circumstance enabled
statesmen like Mr. Churchill to play on these antagonisms, to get control
over Poland on the pretext of protecting her from the Russians, to try to scare
Russia with the spectre of war between her and Poland and retain the position
of arbiter for themselves. But that time is past and gone, for the enmity
between Poland and Russia has given place to friendship between them, and
Poland—present-day democratic Poland—does not choose to be a play-ball in
foreign hands any longer. It seems to me that it is this fact that irritates
Mr. Churchill and makes him indulge in discourteous, tactless sallies against
Poland. Just imagine—he is not being allowed to play his game at the expense of
others!
As to Mr. Churchill’s attack upon the Soviet Union in
connection with the extension of Poland’s Western frontier to include Polish
territories which the Germans had seized in the past—here it seems to me he
is plainly cheating. As is known, the decision on the Western frontier of
Poland was adopted at the Berlin Three-Power Conference on the basis of
Poland’s demands. The Soviet Union has repeatedly stated that it considers
Poland’s demands to be proper and just. It is quite probable that Mr. Churchill
is displeased with this decision. But why does Mr. Churchill, while sparing no
shots against the Russian position in this matter, conceal from his readers
the fact that this decision was passed at the Berlin Conference by unanimous
vote—that it was not only the Russians, but the British and Americans as
well, that voted for the decision? Why did Mr. Churchill think it necessary to
mislead the public?
Further, Mr. Churchill asserts that the Communist
Parties, which were previously very small in all these Eastern States of
Europe, have been raised to prominence and power far beyond their numbers and
seek everywhere to obtain totalitarian control. Police governments prevail in
nearly every case, and “thus far, except in Czechoslovakia, there is no true
democracy.”
As is known, the Government of the State in Britain
at the present time is in the hands of one party, the Labour Party, and the
opposition parties are deprived of the right to participate in the Government
of Britain. That Mr. Churchill calls true democracy. Poland, Rumania,
Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Hungary are administered by blocs of several
parties—from four to six parties—and the opposition, if it is more or less
loyal, is secured the right of participation in the Government. That Mr.
Churchill describes as totalitarianism, tyranny and police rule. Why? On
what grounds? Don’t expect a reply from Mr. Churchill. Mr. Churchill does not
understand in what a ridiculous position he puts himself by his outcry about
“totalitarianism, tyranny and police rule.”
Mr. Churchill would like Poland to be administered by
Sosnkowski and Anders, Yugoslavia by Mikhailovich and Pavelich, Rumania by Prince
Stirbey and Radescu, Hungary and Austria by some King of the House of Hapsburg,
and so on. Mr. Churchill wants to assure us that these gentlemen from the
Fascist backyard can ensure true democracy.
Such is the “democracy” of Mr. Churchill.
15-Concerning the Situation in Japan
Stalin
JANUARY 6, 1950
(Extract)
In this way the political and economic situation of
Japan is completely determined by the aggressive policy of the United States
and by the actions of the American occupation authorities arising therefrom.
Pursuing a policy of reviving Japanese imperialism
and militarization of the country, the American authorities in Japan,
with the help of Japanese reaction, are waging a ceaseless onslaught against
the interests of the working people, destroying democratic organisations
and practicing on a wide scale the policy of sending spies and provocateurs
into the trade unions and organisations of the Communist Party.
Having seized the main Japanese monopolies, the
American capitalists control some 85 per cent of Japan’s economy. Nor are the
Japanese capitalists lagging behind. Nearly 40 per cent of the 1949 budget
appropriations were allocated to subsidize the big monopolies. Taxes paid by
this group of Japanese capitalists account for a mere 3.6 per cent of the
revenue, while taxes paid by the population account for 73 per cent of the
revenue. In this way the working people of Japan are doubly exploited. And
despite the demagogy with which the American imperialists try to screen
themselves, the colonizing and militarist nature of their actions in Japan is
obvious.
The American journal “Pacific News-Week” frankly
declared that the main object of the new plan of the United States is to
turn Japan into a military-industrial anti-Soviet bastion. The Japanese
newspaper “Mainitsi Simbun” likewise expressed its satisfaction that “Japan is
now in the front line of the struggle against Communism”.
Despite the fact that American policy in
Japan flagrantly contradicts the Potsdam decisions concerning the
democratization and demilitarization of Japan and is a policy of an all-out
offensive against the economic and political rights of the Japanese people, the
Japanese Government gives full support to the American colonizing plans. Hence,
the reviving of militarist Japan and the suppression of the democratic movement
has long been the common aim and basis of the bloc of Japanese reactionaries
with American imperialists.
Apart from the common aims, each of the partners of
the bloc is trying to realize his own plans. Japanese reaction is
utilizing United States’ interest in Japan as an ally to bolster its political
influence in the country, while the American imperialists are using the
Japanese reactionaries as a tool with the help of which it will be easier to
smash the democratic organisations and establish complete political and
economic domination in Japan, to turn the country into a base for military
ventures and the Japanese people into cannon fodder.
In these conditions it is imperative for the working
people of Japan to have a clear programme of action.
When is War Not Inevitable?
Stalin
[Excerpts from an interview with correspondent of
Pravda, February 16, 1951)
Question: Do you consider a new world war
inevitable?
Answer: No. At least at the present time it cannot be
considered inevitable.
Of course, in the United States of America, in
Britain, as also in France, there are aggressive forces thirsting for a new
war. They need war to obtain super-profits, to plunder other countries. These
are the billionaires and millionaires who regard war as an item of income which
gives colossal profits.
They, these aggressive forces, control the
reactionary governments and direct them. But at the same time, they are afraid
of their people who do not want a new war and stand for the maintenance of
peace. Therefore, they are trying to use reactionary governments in order to
enmesh their peoples with lies, to deceive them, and to depict the new war
as defensive and the peaceful policy of the peace-loving countries as
aggressive. They are trying to deceive their people in order to impose on
them their aggressive plans and to draw them into a war.
Precisely for this reason they are afraid of the
campaign in defense of peace, fearing that it can expose the aggressive
intentions of the reactionary governments.
Precisely for this reason they turned down the
proposal of the Soviet Union for the conclusion of a Peace Pact, for the
reduction of armaments, for banning the atomic weapon, fearing that the
adoption of these proposals would undermine the aggressive measures of the
reactionary governments and make the armaments race unnecessary.
What will be the end of this struggle between the
aggressive and peace-loving forces?
Peace will be preserved and
consolidated if the people take the cause of preserving peace into their own
hands and will defend it to the end. War may become inevitable if the
warmongers succeed in entangling the masses of the people in lies, in deceiving
them and drawing them into a new world war.
That is why the wide campaign for the maintenance of
peace as a means of exposing the criminal machinations of the warmongers is now
of first-rate importance.
As for the Soviet Union, it will continue in the
future as well firmly to pursue the policy of averting war and maintaining
peace.
16- Stalin Interview
with a "Pravda" Correspondent
17 February 1951
Q. How do you, evaluate the last declaration of the
British Prime Minister Attlee, in the House of Commons, that since the end of
the war, the Soviet Union has not disarmed; that is, they have not demobilized
their troops; that the Soviet Union has since then even further increased their
forces?
A. I evaluate this declaration of Prime Minister
Attlee as a slander on the Soviet Union.
The whole world knows that the Soviet Union demobilized its troops after the war. As is known, demobilization was carried
out in three phases: the first and second phases in the year 1945, and the
third phase from May to September 1946. In addition, in the years 1946 and
1947, the demobilization of older age groups of the Soviet army was carried
through and, starting in 1948, the rest of the older age groups were
demobilized.
That is a generally known fact.
If Prime Minister Attlee was conversant with finance
and economy he would be able to understand, without difficulty, that no one
state, also not the Soviet Union, is in the position to completely develop the
volume of their peace industry, - even more, - dozens of billions of the state
expenditure is required for the purpose of building, such as the hydro-power
works on the Volga, Dnieper and Amu-Darya; to introduce the policy of a
systematic reduction in the price of consumer goods. Likewise, dozens of
billions of the state expenditure are needed to immediately add to the hundreds
of billions for the reconstruction of the economy demolished by the German
occupation, to expand the people's economy and at the same time to increase
their military forces and develop their war industry. It is not difficult to
understand that such a foolish policy would lead to state bankruptcy. Prime
Minister Attlee must, from his own experience as well as, from the experience
of the U.S.A., know that the increasing of the military forces of countries
and the development of the arms race would lead to a limitation of the
peace industry, to a close-down of great civic building, to a raising of tax
and to a raising of the price of consumer goods. It is understandable that, if
the Soviet Union does not limit the peace industry but, on the contrary,
furthers it, then new building, greater hydro-power works and water systems
will not be suspended but, on the contrary, developed, the policy of reducing
prices will not be suspended but, on the contrary, continued, they could not at
the same time develop their war industry and increase their military strength
without thereby taking the risk of bankruptcy.
And if Prime Minister Attlee, despite all these facts
and economic considerations, nevertheless holds it possible to openly insult
the Soviet Union and its peaceful politics, one can only declare that, by
slandering the Soviet Union, the present Labour government in England
wants to justify carrying on their own arms race.
Prime Minister Attlee needs to lie about the Soviet
Union; he must represent the peaceful politics of the Soviet Union as
aggressive, and the aggressive politics of the English government as peaceful
politics to mislead the English people, to blindfold them with this
lie about the Soviet Union, and in this way drag them towards a new world war
that would be organized by the warmongering circles in the United States of
America.
Prime Minister Attlee pretends to be a
follower of peace. But if he really is for peace, why was he against the proposal
of the Soviet Union in the United Nations Organization on the conclusion of a
peace pact between the Soviet Union, England, the United States of America, China,
and France?
If he really is for peace, why is he against the
proposals of the Soviet Union to immediately begin to limit armaments and to
immediately forbid atomic weapons?
If he really is for peace, why does he persecute those
that intercede for the defence of peace; why has he forbidden the peace
congress in England? Could the campaign for the defence of peace possibly
threaten the security of England?
It is clear that Prime Minister Attlee is not for the
keeping of peace, but rather for the unleashing of a new
world-encompassing war of aggression.
Q. What do you think about the intervention in Korea?
How can that end?
A. If England and the United States of America finally
decline the proposals of the People's Government of China for peace, then the
war in Korea can only end in defeat of the interventionists.
Q. Why? Are then, the American and English generals
and officers worse than the Chinese and Korean?
A. No, not worse. The American and English
generals and officers are not worse than the generals and officers of any other
country you like to name. Where the soldiers of the U.S.A. and England
are concerned, in the war against Hitler-Germany and militaristic Japan, they
proved to be the best side, as is known. Where, then, lies the
difference? In that the soldiers in the war against Korea and China do
not consider it as just, whereas in the war against Hitler-Germany and
militaristic Japan, they considered it absolutely just. It also lies
in that this war is extremely unpopular among the American and English
soldiers.
In this case it is difficult to convince the soldiers
that China, who threatened neither England nor America, from whom
the Americans stole the island of Taiwan, are aggressors, and that the U.S.A.,
having stolen the island of Taiwan and led their troops straight to
the borders of China, is the defending side. It is therefore difficult to
convince the troops that the U.S.A. is right to defend its security on Korean
territory and on the borders of China, and that China and Korea are not
right to defend their security on their own territory or on the borders of
their states. That is why the war is unpopular among the American and
English soldiers.
it is understandable that experienced generals and
officers will suffer a defeat if their soldiers are forced into a war which
they consider totally unjust, and if they believe their duties at the front to
be formal, without believing in the justice of their mission, without feeling
enthusiasm.
Q. flow do you evaluate the decision of the United
Nations Organization to declare the Chinese People's Republic as the
aggressors?
A. One regards it as a scandalous decision.
Really, one must have lost what was left of
conscience to maintain that the United States of America, which has
stolen Chinese territory, the island of Taiwan, and fallen upon China's
borders in Korea, is the defensive side; and on the other hand, to
declare that the Chinese People's “Republic which has defended its
borders and striven to take back the island of Taiwan, stolen by the
Americans, is the aggressor.
The United Nations Organization, which was created as
a bulwark for keeping peace, has been transformed into an instrument of
war, a means to unleash a new world war. The aggressive core of the
United Nations Organization has formed the aggressive North Atlantic
pact from ten member states (the U.S.A., England, France, Belgium,
Canada, Holland, Luxemburg, Denmark, Norway, Iceland) and twenty Latin-American
countries (Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico,
Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela.) And the representatives
of these countries now make the decisions in the United Nations Organization
about war and peace. It was these that have, in the United Nations
Organizations, carried through the scandalous decision about the
aggression of the Chinese People's Republic.
It is typical of the present situation in the United
Nations Organization, that, for example, the little Dominican Republic in
America that has a population figure of scarcely two million, has today the
same weight in the United Nations Organization as India has, and a much greater
weight than the Chinese People's Republic, which has been robbed of a voice in
the United Nations Organization.
Thus, the United Nations Organization, from being a
world organization of nations with equal rights, has changed into an
instrument of a war of aggression. In reality, the United Nations
Organization is now not so much a world organization as an organization for the
Americans and treats American aggression as acceptable. Not only
the United States of America and Canada are striving to unleash a new war, but
on this path, you also find the twenty Latin-American countries; their
landowners and merchants long for a new war somewhere in Europe or Asia, to
sell their goods to the countries at inflated prices, and to make millions out
of this bloody business. The fact is not a secret to anybody that the
representatives of the twenty Latin-American countries represent the strongest
supporters and the willing army of the United States of America in the United
Nations Organization.
The United Nations Organization treads, in this
manner, the inglorious path of the League of Nations. Thereby they bury their
moral authority unci fall into decay.
Q. Do you hold a new world war to be
unavoidable?
A. No. At least, one can, at present, hold it to be
not unavoidable.
Of course, in the United States of America, in
England and also in France, there are aggressive powers that long for a new
war. They need war to achieve super-profits and to plunder other
countries. These are the billionaires and millionaires that regard war as a
fountain of revenue, which brings colossal profits.
They, the aggressive powers, hold the reactionary
governments in their hands and guide them. But at the same time, they are
afraid of their people who do not want a new war and are for the keeping of
peace. Therefore, they take the trouble of using reactionary governments to
ensnare their people with lies, to deceive them, to represent a new war as a
war of defense, and the peaceful politics of peace-loving countries as
aggressive. They take the trouble to deceive the people, to force them and draw
them into a new war with their aggressive plans.
They therefore even fear the campaign for the defense
of peace, they fear that this campaign would expose the aggressive intentions
of the reactionary governments.
They therefore even oppose the proposals of the Soviet
Union on the conclusion of a peace treaty, on the limitation of armaments and
on the forbidding of atomic weapons; they fear that the acceptance of these
proposals would frustrate the aggressive measures of the reactionary
governments and render the arms race unnecessary.
Where will all this struggle between the aggressive
and the peace-loving powers end?
Peace will be kept and strengthened if the people take
the holding of peace into their own hands and defend it to the utmost. War
could be unavoidable if the arsonists of war succeed in trapping the masses
with their lies, in deceiving them and in drawing them into a new war.
Now, therefore, a broad campaign for the holding of
peace, as a way of exposing the criminal machinations of the arsonists of war,
is of prime importance.
As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, it will
continue to carry through the politics of preventing war and keeping peace.
17- Economic Problems of the USSR
Stalin, 1951
Inevitability of Wars Between Capitalist Countries
Some comrades hold that, owing to the development of
new international conditions since the Second World War, wars between
capitalist countries have ceased to be inevitable. They consider that the
contradictions between the socialist camp and the capitalist camp are more
acute than the contradictions among the capitalist countries; that the U.S.A.
has brought the other capitalist countries sufficiently under its sway to be
able to prevent them going to war among themselves and weakening one another;
that the fore-most capitalist minds have been sufficiently taught by the two
world wars and the severe damage they caused to the whole capitalist world not
to venture to involve the capitalist countries in war with one another again -
and that, because of all this, wars between capitalist countries are no longer
inevitable.
These comrades are mistaken. They
see the outward phenomena that come and go on the surface, but they do not see
those profound forces which, although they are so far operating imperceptibly,
will nevertheless determine the course of developments.
Outwardly, everything would seem to be "going
well": the U.S.A. has put Western Europe, Japan, and other capitalist
countries on rations; Germany (Western), Britain, France, Italy, and Japan have
fallen into the clutches of the U.S.A. and are meekly obeying its commands. But
it would be mistaken to think that things can continue to "go well"
for "all eternity," that these countries will tolerate the
domination and oppression of the United States endlessly, that they will
not endeavour to tear loose from American bondage and take the path of independent
development.
Take, first of all, Britain, and France.
Undoubtedly, they are imperialist countries. Undoubtedly, cheap raw
materials and secure markets are of paramount importance to them. Can it be
assumed that they will endlessly tolerate the present situation, in which,
under the guise of "Marshall plan aid," Americans are penetrating
into the economies of Britain and France and trying to convert them into
adjuncts of the economy, and American capital is seizing raw materials in the
British and French colonies and thereby plotting disaster for the high profits
of the British and French capitalists? Would it not be truer to say that
capitalist Britain, and, after her, capitalist France, will be compelled in the
end to break from the embrace of the U.S.A. and enter into conflict with it in
order to secure an independent position and, of course, high profits?
Let us pass to the major vanquished countries,
Germany (Western) and Japan. These countries are now languishing in misery under
the jackboot of American imperialism. Their industry and agriculture, their
trade, their foreign and home policies, and their whole life are fettered by
the American occupation "regime." Yet only yesterday these
countries were great imperialist powers and were shaking the foundations
of the domination of Britain, the U.S.A. and France in Europe and Asia. To
think that these countries will not try to get on their feet again, will not
try to smash the U.S. "regime," and force their way to independent
development, is to believe in miracles.
It is said that the contradictions between capitalism
and socialism are stronger than the contradictions among the capitalist
countries. Theoretically, of course, that is true. It is not only true
now, today; it was true before the Second World War. And it was more or less
realized by the leaders of the capitalist countries. Yet the Second World
War began not as a war with the U.S.S.R., but as a war between capitalist
countries. Why? Firstly, because war with the U.S.S.R., as a socialist
land, is more dangerous to capitalism than war between capitalist countries;
for whereas war between capitalist countries puts in question only the
supremacy of certain capitalist countries over others, war with the
U.S.S.R. must certainly put in question the existence of capitalism itself.
Secondly, because the capitalists, although they clamour, for
"propaganda" purposes, about the aggressiveness of the Soviet Union,
do not themselves believe that it is aggressive, because they are aware of the
Soviet Union's peaceful policy and know that it will not itself attack
capitalist countries.
After the First World War it was similarly believed
that Germany had been definitely put out of action, just as certain comrades
now believe that Japan and Germany have been definitely put out of action.
Then, too, it was said and clamoured in the press that the United States had
put Europe on rations; that Germany would never rise to her feet again, and
that there would be no more wars between capitalist countries. In spite of
this, Germany rose to her feet again as a great power within the space of
some fifteen or twenty years after her defeat, having broken out of bondage
and taken the path of independent development. And it is significant that it
was none other than Britain and the United States that helped Germany to
recover economically and to enhance her economic war potential. Of course, when
the United States and Britain assisted Germany's economic recovery, they did
so with a view to setting a recovered Germany against the Soviet Union, to
utilizing her against the land of socialism. But Germany directed her forces in
the first place against the Anglo-French-American bloc. And when Hitler Germany
declared war on the Soviet Union, the Anglo-French-American bloc, far from
joining with Hitler Germany, was compelled to enter into a coalition with the
U.S.S.R. against Hitler Germany.
Consequently, the struggle of the capitalist countries
for markets and their desire to crush their competitors proved in practice to
be stronger than the contradictions between the capitalist camp and the
socialist camp.
What guarantee is there, then, that Germany and Japan
will not rise to their feet again, will not attempt to break out of American
bondage and live their own independent lives? I think there is no such
guarantee.
But it follows from this that the inevitability of
wars between capitalist countries remains in force.
It is said that Lenin's thesis that imperialism
inevitably generates war must now be regarded as obsolete, since powerful
popular forces have come forward today in defence of peace and against another
world war. That is not true.
The object of the present-day peace movement is to
rouse the masses of the people to fight for the preservation of peace and
for the prevention of another world war. Consequently, the aim of this
movement is not to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism - it
confines itself to the democratic aim of preserving peace. In this respect,
the present-day peace movement differs from the movement of the time of the
First World War for the conversion of the imperialist war into civil war
since the latter movement went farther and pursued socialist aims.
It is possible that in a definite conjuncture of
circumstances the fight for peace will develop here or there into a fight for
socialism. But then it will no longer be the present-day peace movement; it
will be a movement for the overthrow of capitalism.
What is most likely is that the present-day peace
movement, as a movement for the preservation of peace, will,
if it succeeds, result in preventing a particular war, in its temporary
postponement, in the temporary preservation of a particular peace, in the
resignation of a bellicose government and its supersession by another that is
prepared temporarily to keep the peace. That, of course, will be good. Even
very good. But all the same, it will not be enough to eliminate the
inevitability of wars between capitalist countries generally. It will not
be enough, because, for all the successes of the peace movement, imperialism
will remain, continue in force - and, consequently, the inevitability of
wars will also continue in force.
To eliminate the inevitability of war, it is necessary
to abolish imperialism.
18- From Falsificators of
History - The Creation of an "Eastern" Front, Germany's Attack
Upon the USSR; The Anti-Hitler Coalition and the Question of Inter
Allied Obligations
On March 12, 1940, the
Soviet-Finnish Peace Treaty was signed.
Thus, the defense of the USSR
against Hitlerite aggression was strengthened also in the north, in the
Leningrad area, where the defense line was shifted to a distance of 150
kilometers north of Leningrad with Vyborg included.
But this did not yet mean that
the formation of an "Eastern" front from the Baltic to the Black Sea
had been completed. Pacts had been concluded with the Baltic States, but there
were as yet no Soviet troops there capable of holding the defenses. Moldavia
and Bukovina had formally been reunited with the USSR, but there too, there
were still no Soviet troops capable of holding the defenses. In the middle of June
1940, Soviet troops entered Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. On June 27, 1940,
Soviet troops entered Bukovina and Moldavia. The latter had been severed by
Romania from the USSR after the October Revolution.
Thus, the formation of an
"Eastern" front against Hitlerite aggression from the Baltic to the
Black Sea was completed.
The British and French ruling
circles, which went on abusing the USSR and calling it an aggressor for
creating an "Eastern" front, evidently did not realize that the
appearance of an "Eastern" front signified a radical turn In the
development of the war – a turn against Hitlerite tyranny, a turn in favor of a
victory for democracy.
They did not realize that it was
not a question of infringing or not infringing upon the national rights of
Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, but that the point was to organize
victory over the Nazis in order to prevent the conversion of those countries
into disfranchised colonies of Hitler Germany.
They did not realize that the
point was to build up a barrier against the advance of the German troops
wherever that was possible, to organize a strong defence and then to launch a
counter-offensive, smash the Hitlerite troops and thereby create the
opportunity for the free development of those countries.
They did not realize that there
existed no other way to defeat Hitler's aggression.
Was the British Government
right when it stationed its troops in Egypt during the war, in spite
of the protests of the Egyptians and even resistance on the part of certain
elements in Egypt? Unquestionably it was right. That was a
highly important means of barring the way to Hitler's aggression toward the
Suez Canal, of safeguarding Egypt against Hitler's attempts, of organizing
victory over Hitler, and thus averting the conversion of Egypt into a colony of
Hitler Germany. Only enemies of democracy or people who have lost their
senses can assert that the action of the British Government in that case
constituted aggression.
Was the United States
Government right when it landed its troops at Casablanca in spite of
the protests of the Moroccans and of direct military counteraction on the part
of the Petain Government of France whose authority extended to Morocco?
Unquestionably it was right. That was a highly important means of creating a
base to counteract German aggression in immediate proximity to Western Europe,
of organizing victory over Hitler's troops and thus creating the opportunity
for liberating France from Hitler's colonial oppression. Only enemies
of democracy or people who have lost their senses could regard these actions of
American troops as aggression.
But then the same must be said
about the actions of the Soviet Government which by the summer of 1940
organized an "Eastern" front against Hitlerite aggression and
stationed its troops as far west as possible from Leningrad, Moscow, and Kiev.
That was the only means of barring the way of an unhindered advance of the
German troops eastward, of building up strong defenses and then launching a
counteroffensive in order to smash, jointly with the Allies, Hitler's Army and
thus prevent the conversion of peace-loving countries of Europe, among them
Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland into colonies of Hitler
Germany. Only enemies of democracy or people who have lost their senses could
describe those actions of the Soviet Government as aggression.
But it follows from this that
Chamberlain, Daladier, and their entourage, who described this policy of the
Soviet Government as aggression and organized the expulsion of the Soviet Union
from the League of Nations, acted as enemies of democracy or as people who had
lost their senses.
.jpg)
No comments