The great master of the game of "pacifism" - Lunacharsky
In the early days of the Conference on Disarmament, the news came that Aristide Briand had died. The death of this statesman - one of the largest in recent times and extremely closely connected with the whole work on the "pacification of mankind" - was much less noticeable than one might have expected. At the conference itself and at the Assembly of the League of Nations, which met in parallel with it and examined the Sino-Japanese conflict, this event was noted extremely sparsely. At both large meetings, the chairman spoke a few words in memory of Briand, literally 2-3 minutes each. At both meetings, Paul Boncourt, who represented France, said a few words which were later characterized by the newspapers as extremely lofty, but in reality empty and cold. After Boncourt's speech, the meeting was interrupted for ten minutes and all the members of the world assembly rushed to the buffet. When they returned to the hall, classes continued, and Briana was not mentioned in another speech.
Such an insignificant demonstration of attention to the memory of Briand, of course, is explained by the fact that Briand died already, a retired Briand. However, during almost his entire political life, he was very much needed by the bourgeoisie, and in particular as the most skillful master in the game called "disarmament" or "pacifism." That is why I want to preface my report with a brief description of Briand. Although the politicians who came into existence after him (above all, Monsieur Tardieu, the present Minister of Foreign Affairs and head of the French government) represent a new version of imperialist tactics, nevertheless, an understanding of Briand's actions does a lot for understanding the bourgeois politics of which they are a part current Geneva meetings.
Briand was usually called "charmeur", that is, a charmer - a person who knows how to put you in a good mood when there is no reason for this, or to present to you as valuable and beautiful something that is not really valuable and can be even ugly. The concept of "charm" includes in a sense a mild and extremely skillful and pleasant fraud.
Briand to a high degree possessed the art of the most unexpected breaks in the political line and very unpleasant actions to clothe in elegant forms. His whole life is a series of betrayals, and each of them was accompanied by brilliant speeches in which he smoothed over all sorts of sharp corners, justified his betrayals and portrayed his position as acceptable to those social groups whose interests he violated.
He began his activity by joining the workers' party, which did not allow the intelligentsia to join him. Brian, by way of exception, entered in. He fought the Marxists there, accusing them of carrying out the work of the workers with insufficient energy. He argued that the struggle of electoral, parliamentary activity, propaganda, agitation and organization of workers is not enough, that more direct methods of action are needed. As such a direct method of action, he put forward a general strike. Briand was one of the first to recommend this really strong form of struggle to the working class.
But it is remarkable that in those very speeches in which he sometimes gave Ged a great deal of trouble, and by which he sometimes won thunderous applause among genuine proletarian revolutionaries, he always mentioned that there was another good side to the general strike. The good news is that the strike is essentially legal: French law allows strikes. Thus, Briand preached, in the general strike the working class has the strongest political weapon, forcing the bourgeoisie to be the first to violate legality.
Later, Briand became the most devoted servant and guardian of the interests of the bourgeoisie, and when his former comrades reproached him: “How can you say so, you, who so eloquently defended the general strike as a way to wrest power from the hands of the bourgeoisie,” Briand answered: “I always said, that a strike is a legal action, from the very beginning I embarked not on a revolutionary, but on a legal path, and I will always be faithful to legalism.
When Briand became the head of the bourgeois movement against the church, a very large number of workers and peasants, a very large number of the French advanced intelligentsia surrounded him with their love and respect as an ideologist who tore up the autonomous right of the church and subordinated the church to a republican secular state.
Meanwhile, in his speeches of that time, skillful and subtle as always, Brian, addressing the church, the clergy, the pope, said in essence: “Why are you afraid of us? Do you think that if the church is subordinated to the secular state, then you will be finished? No, we are full of respect for the truths of Christianity. It will only be easier for you, the responsibility will decrease, we will take on part of your burden. When the secular state presses the church to its chest, you will see how warm you will be.”
Indeed, it is impossible not to recognize the well-known role of Briand in the fact that to this day clericalism in France has remained an enormous force.
A very characteristic episode took place between Briand and Jaurès, during which Briand described himself in a vivid form. He spoke about Zhores in the same words that he used when he told his students about the secret of eloquence and the ability to charm. The incident itself was very significant.
During the strike of the railroad workers, Briand, who was then Minister of the Interior, carried out a whole series of actions that not only destroyed this strike with draconian measures and frustrated the desire of the railroad workers to improve their lot, but he even crossed the limits of legality. The Socialists made a huge scandal in the House when Briand declared that in order to save France and to strengthen her defenses, he was always ready to break any law. Two days later, Jaurès delivered a speech against Briand. With great pathos, indignation and passion of the tribune, he said:
“The working class has erased you from its memory, Brian, you have become an enemy of the working class, you have trampled on all your former principles, you have crumpled and trampled on what you worshiped!”
Briand rose to answer him, and began thus: “Jores, today you delivered the best of your speeches, it was so excellent that I wanted to applaud you, and only the fact that this speech was intended to politically kill me kept me from doing so. . But I ask myself if it was the noblest of your speeches. Think what tricks you have resorted to in order to turn your enormous talent against me. You didn't read this speech, you improvised it. You know well that when you improvise a speech, each word seems to be distributed to the audience from the very depths of the orator's heart. This is a dramatic manner, you not only delivered your speech, you acted it out, using the whole arsenal of your captivating gestures, your magnificent voice, which sounded like a symphony.
All these words that Briand then said to Jaurès, in order to prove that his speech was not imbued with real indignation, but was only an example of oratory, all these words are much more applicable to Briand himself. Brian taught: “Never read your speeches. When the speaker reads her speech, she may be more slender, but this is a cold dish.
How to use voice inflections, how to feel what you say, what gestures to use in order to sneak into the heart of the listeners - all this Brian taught as conscious devices.
There is another speaker, politically just as distant to us and just as much a hypocrite as Brian, and that is Vandervelde.
When Vandervelde spoke at international congresses, Plekhanov always said: "Here our protodeacon is about to speak." Indeed, Vandervelde's voice is rich, he masterfully masters it and makes a great impression on the audience. But it is characteristic of his speeches that they seem to be written in capital letters, and a petite note is made to them: “Do not believe, all this is a lie.” The greatest falsehood of Vandervelde's words is felt every minute.
Brian was a speaker of a completely different school. He understood that theatrical upbeat recitation and howls were not suitable as a method of charm. He seemed to speak extremely simply. His main trick was that he was worried in front of you, embarrassed, remembered something, got upset, hoped and acted it all out like a good realist actor, about whom they say: “Here he is! You can forget that you are in the theater and believe that this is life itself.
I have already said that throughout his life Brian used this gift of persuasion in various cases when it was necessary to calm those whom he betrayed. For example, leaving the working class, betraying it entirely, he did not fail to make a very loud speech that the republic, which considers itself a real democratic state, should improve the lives of the workers, since the workers are its beloved sons, that the hidden dream of the state is namely, in order to quickly make the workers equal in culture and well-being as citizens.
That is what the bourgeoisie valued in him, that is why they so willingly took him into their service, so quickly led him through all the steps of his political career to the highest.
Briand had a rare knack for portraying an acute, difficult political situation shamelessly, if not as beautiful, then at least as acceptable.
But if Brian was a famous politician and a famous orator even before the war, then Brian acquired the reputation of a man almost a saint, a peacemaker, the halo of one of the leaders of mankind after it.
There is a fairly widespread notion that Brian is a man of the world. Even such an intelligent figure as Stresemann apparently admitted the idea that Brian loves Germany like his own sister, that Brian is full of the best aspirations towards her. Meanwhile, the political meaning of Briand's "peace" can only be understood from the position of France after the war.
Of the European countries that participated in the war, one France was the real winner, the only country that rounded up the resources of its industry, pumped into its banks a huge amount of gold from other people's reserves. It deployed an unprecedented military power on land and at sea and became in fact the hegemon of the capitalist part of the European continent, creating around itself a whole retinue of dependent small states.
Immediately after the war, French policy suddenly became pacifist. Her military and economic resources allowed her to plunder her neighbors without going to war with them. The money had to flow in by itself on the basis of the Treaty of Versailles*, on the basis of the debt obligations of the "allies", on the basis of the credit strength of its banks. The pacifism of France is quite special. It did not stem from generosity, but from the deepest selfishness, from the fear that the robbed would want something back. And since among the robbed there is such a great country as Germany, driven to despair by the exactions, payments that were imposed on her as a result of a lost war, then, of course, France has fear, as if favorable circumstances, dizzying heights, to which France climbed, did not lead to revenge, to a vindictive movement or some kind of association of the weak against the strong. Weapons are needed against this, and the policy of Poincaré, the greatest representative of French imperialism, was this: one must be the strongest of all. The vanquished countries should not be allowed to arm at all, to follow the rest and not allow any unfavorable balance of power for France - to arrange groupings, alliances of vassal states in such a way that France's hegemony is ensured.
* The Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919 is one of the imperialist treaties that ended the First World War of 1914-1918, signed on June 28, 1919 by England, the USA, France, Italy, Japan and 22 powers allied with them, on the one hand, and surrendered Germany - on the other. Together with the Saint-Germain and Trianon treaties, the Washington agreement and others, the Treaty of Versailles created the Versailles-Washington system, established by the victorious powers - Note. ed.
But the main thing is to have a long, sharp, strong sword. In such a situation, when it is necessary to protect the treasures heaped up as a result of a predatory war, one must be armed to the teeth. This was Poincaré's philosophy, this is the essence of Poincaré as a politician. That is why it was called "Poincaré War". And Brian was "Brian the world" because he corrected Poincaré's thesis.
You can imagine the conversation between them! To Poincaré's tirade about the need to be armed to the teeth, Briand replies:
“France, of course, will not let go of a single gun, she will not weaken her army until she feels completely safe. But is it not possible to achieve this security right now, is it possible to make the weak and robbed kiss our hands, so that they bow to us because we have given them the opportunity to live? To do this, we must pursue a firm policy, but do it gracefully, so that every penny we leave in the pocket of the robbed serves as proof of our generosity. Here my role begins, here I, the charmer Brian, come to the fore. We will make it clear to the bourgeoisie of the vanquished countries that our French arms protect all those who seek to preserve the capitalist system, and all those who have property must rely on us. In the attitude of the defeated countries towards the bourgeoisie, great courtesy, * courtesy, must be introduced. You can’t pull so hard on the chain in which we chained them, you need to remove this chain with flowers. Do not change anything in essence in the policy of extortion and gain, but introduce French elegance into it and talk as much as possible about peace, prosperity, humanity, brotherhood, forgiveness of enemies, etc. This is also a kind of weapon. They cannot replace tanks and guns, but next to them, pacifism is a good thing.”
In France they argued. Many thought that Brian would not break loose, that Locarno would not take him too far. And others calmed And said: "Brian will be able to prove that we are not robbers, but benefactors - what could be better?"
* Courtly (fr.) - exquisitely polite, amiable. — Approx. ed.
** This refers to the Locarno agreements of 1925, signed between England, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Czechoslovakia and Poland. The agreements, known as the Lokaris, were intended to regroup the forces of the imperialist powers in order to create an anti-Soviet bloc and prepare for a new world war. — Approx. ed.
Brian had many great triumphs in his life. One of these triumphs was the speech he gave when Germany was admitted to the League of Nations, that is, more precisely, when she was forced to agree to enter the League of Nations and when Germany's representatives appeared in the "family of nations." Among other fireworks of eloquence, Briand then said:
“Now we are at the threshold of the end of the work that the best minds and hearts of all mankind have dreamed of. We are burying the war. I promise you, unfortunate mothers who, looking at their children, sadly think whether they will be a victim of death at the front, that you will joyfully look at them, you will be sure that this misfortune does not threaten them. Silence cannons, silence machine guns! You don't have a word here. Here the world speaks.
And everyone began to cry, some from naivete, and others from delight that one can deceive people so cleverly. But one way or another, everyone was in awe of this speech.
By such tricks Brian achieved the fact that he was recognized as a great benefactor of mankind. In fact, he was only a clever statesman, a protege of the militant French bourgeoisie.
Briand was the author of the project of an alliance known as pan-Europe. * One need only think a little about this plan of Briand to see that this is nothing but the organization of Europe under the hegemony of France, a weapon that can be directed against America - a merciless creditor - or against England, who still claims to be the ruler of the seas.
But the easiest thing was to turn pan-Europe - "the guardian of civilization", "the guardian of art, science", "of everything good that exists in the world" - against us, against Bolshevik barbarism, which threatens to destroy all of humanity.
* The project of a "pan-Europe" union was put forward by Briand in May 1930 with the aim of creating an anti-Soviet bloc of European states. Due to contradictions between the alleged members of the union, the "pan-Europe" project was not implemented. — Approx. ed.
First of all, the pan-European Union was supposed to serve for intervention against the USSR.
The preparations for the war were served by Briand under such magnificent French sauce that bourgeois politicians got the opportunity to say: “Here is a step forward towards internationalism!” that without Briand, obviously, the end of our sinful world would come. It was done so cleverly, so skillfully, that even as a political magician Brian deserves to be placed in the pantheon.
But the bourgeoisie proved ungrateful. Brian asked to be allowed to sit in the presidential chair before his death, but he was not chosen. And after some time, energetic politicians, such as Tardieu-Laval, completely removed him from the political arena.
The Spanish delegate in Geneva, Madariaga, characterizing Briand in a short article, said that Briand had monstrously large, frightening jaws and unusually soft, graceful hands. Indeed, on the one hand, there was something in him that testifies to a predatory breed, akin to a crocodile, but, on the other hand, his flying, gentle hands resembled a prestidigitator.*
* Prestigator (Italian) - a magician who performs numbers based on the speed of movement and manual dexterity. — Approx. ed.
Monsieur Tardieu's jaws are as good as Briand's. Real steel jaws! But Tardieu's hands are not at all graceful, not thin, and not adapted to juggling. These are the firm hands of a boxer. Brian was a typical intellectual, very stooped, somewhat short-sighted, he made his way among the people in the hall, politely bowing to the right and left, mixing one with the other, because he did not see very well. And Tardieu walks with a heavy but firm gait through the Geneva hall, and everyone moves aside, making way for him.
The biography of Mr. Tardieu is called "Tardier's Volitional Life", because Tardieu's will comes first. She made him a wealthy man, a major politician, a trusted clerk of the French bourgeoisie, who has now promoted him to one of the first places among politicians and actors in Geneva.
Tardieu is the brightest, most colorful, most powerful figure in Geneva, one of the backstage conductors and at the same time the best artists who perform a disarming performance in front of the whole world.
I will tell about Tardieu's actions in Geneva, and you will see how different he is in manner from Briand. He does not want to "charm" (charm), he places the pieces on the chessboard very firmly, although at the same time he is quite cunningly launching a magazine campaign, which, like a smoke screen, can cover up cynical and chauvinistic politics.
All bourgeois politicians - some more talented, others less talented - must resort to one of these tactics: the tactics of Briand or the tactics of Tardieu, since the bourgeoisie guides humanity not for the good of humanity, but in order to exploit it. But it is remarkable that both Briand and Tardieu equally highly value the Geneva Conference on Disarmament as a means of carrying out France's imperialist policy.
“You are our slaves, and if you try to get up from your knees, refuse to bear the corvée, we will teach you a lesson,” one can say when the proletariat has not yet woken up, when every offense remains unanswered, when a cruel crisis does not undermine the very economic basis of capitalism and at the same time, faith in the stability of the capitalist system. But when the power of the bourgeoisie is not so strong and durable, one has to be cunning and build "democratic", "pacifist" and the like scenery. Today we will be mainly interested in pacifist scenery.
Why does the bourgeoisie arrange a Geneva spectacle
First of all, you need to find out why such grandiose scenery was needed? Why is a huge and lengthy discussion organized, which is hardly beneficial to bourgeois critics, especially in the current tense situation?
Nobody now believes that the conference will lead to disarmament.
The Malke Powers, which maintained the illusion that the strong could not do as they pleased with the weak, received an object lesson. Japan chose an opportune moment, took into account that everyone who is interested in keeping China within its current borders cannot now seriously fight Japan, agreed with some powers on various mutual concessions and, with complete simplicity of morals, made a military raid on China * Japan rejected everything the intervention of the League of Nations, arguing:
"This is not a war."
And 20 thousand killed and maimed in one Chapey? What about destroyed libraries, irreproducible cultural treasures? And what about the millions and millions of losses suffered by China?
It turns out that this is not called a war. War is when one power sends another piece of paper called "declaration of war". Is there a paper? There are no papers! So there is no war!
"And what," Japan was asked, "is your action in China?"
"Local Incident"
And the meaning of this incident is that the Japanese are defending, not attacking. They have interests in Manchuria and Shanghai. China does not want to recognize these interests. Japan is on the defensive.
Another Japanese way of deflecting international intervention in the Sino-Japanese War (and in this respect the French and English press connives at it) is as follows:
“Yes, in relations between powers, one must adhere to the Kellogg Pact, ** and the Washington ***, and all sorts of other treaties, but is China still a power?”
* May 27, 1927 Japan began sending expeditionary troops to China. The first act of Japanese aggression, which ended with the occupation of Shandong Province, marked the beginning of Japan's widely conceived expansionist policy towards China. — Approx. ed.
** The Kellogg-Briand Pact was signed in Paris on August 27, 1928 by representatives of the United States, France, Germany, England, Italy, Japan, Belgium, Poland and Czechoslovakia on the prohibition of war as an instrument of national policy. The Soviet government also ratified this pact. — Approx. ed.
*** The Washington Treaty of the Nine (USA, England, France, Japan, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Portugal, China) was signed in Washington on February 6, 1922. The powers that signed the treaty formally proclaimed the principle of respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of China and open door policy. In reality, the treaty was designed to oust the imperialist rivals of the United States, and primarily Japan, from China. — Approx. ed.
When China joined the League of Nations, there were no doubts, but now the question has arisen: maybe it really is not a power?
Japan is inclined to believe that China is not China, but a huge meal that anyone who has a military iron spoon can eat, and if you don’t eat it, then others will eat it, which means that if there is such a moment when you can more or less to push back competitors with impunity, this must be done. The Japanese raise this question in the same way as all the governments and militarist parties of the imperialist countries.
At the Geneva Assembly, the small countries tried to remind them that this was not possible, that this was a mockery of all the statutes of the League of Nations. They were terribly scared. What is this? So each of them is in the same position. Any small country can be raped with impunity on the grounds that "what kind of power is this - I can digest as many such powers as I like in my stomach." So there is no security?
The large predators have to respond to these disturbing requests, of course, not too directly and not too shamelessly.
Further events could not calm the "equal" members of the League of Nations, deprived of large armies.
What does a roundtable conference mean? The Japanese with the guests sit around the table, China lies on the table, and it is cut into pieces. In the best case for China, it will lose Shanghai, which is being turned into a neutral city with a semi-foreign government. Foreign settlements are expanding. Japan gets a good base for its landings, for further action. Manchuria is torn off from China, has become an "independent" country, which is in vassal dependence on Japan.
Seeing this, the small powers felt very, very uncomfortable.
The conference, which began in such an environment, was surrounded by a mourning frame. A lot of journalists said:
“We didn’t meet at the right time, it’s even tactless to talk about security now. The possibility of a war breaking through the whole veil and sticking out, the Japanese-Chinese conflict can turn into a world war at any moment.
Indeed, there is not a single sage now who could predict whether this “local incident” will turn into the world's greatest catastrophe. The tension is now enormous, and it has become clear to everyone that the League of Nations does not guarantee against war.
The difficulties that the leaders of the Geneva dramatization are experiencing have in general been exacerbated this year.
The powers that dictate the situation never believed in the possibility of disarmament, but now even the petty powers, who previously had some illusions, have lost faith in it. The discussion reveals many contradictions between states. The impossibility of resolving them makes everyone more and more impatiently brush aside disarmament, any more or less serious proposal. It takes gigantic art to make pacifist public opinion believe that peace is being made in Geneva. And to all this, add the presence of a "traitor" in the society gathered in Geneva. We, the Soviet delegation, are that traitor.
Our duty, as representatives of the working class of the whole world and our working class, is to show that the measures that are being taken are zero, to show that international contradictions are great and cannot be radically resolved within the framework of capitalism, and therefore the results of the conference will be completely insignificant. They cannot but be insignificant, because in practice its "work" is reduced to a game that is needed to divert the attention of public opinion from the preparation of the imperialists for war and intervention against the USSR.
But why did the capitalists need to invite the USSR to the conference? Why reduce the chances of leading public opinion? Why have they invited people who are not part of a common agreement and are tearing off the veil that the Genevan political masters are weaving and spread before the eyes of public opinion?
This had to be done because a disarmament conference without the USSR is nonsense. It is impossible to talk about disarmament if such a great power does not participate in it. It's just not possible. In order to claim any value, the conference had to include us.
But why, under very unfavorable conditions for itself, does the bourgeoisie put on this Geneva spectacle?
The imperialist governments are compelled to some extent to reckon with the pacifists. I am not talking about the false pacifism of hardened politicians, but about the aversion to war, about the fear of war of the broad masses.
It is not necessary to underestimate, just as it is not necessary to overestimate pacifist public opinion. Pacifists number in the tens and maybe hundreds of millions - that's for sure. The petitions, which were filed in Geneva, were signed by 60-70 million pacifists organized in various societies and leagues. On this basis, some say: “Excuse me, what kind of war can we talk about? Here men and especially women go endlessly, carrying endless notebooks in which it is written in all languages of the world: “We do not want war!”.
But we know the price of such demonstrations. The old mother, who is now looking with excited eyes at the presidium of the Geneva Conference: “Here are the people who, as Brian said, came to save my children from the war, here are the people who will bury the war,” the same old woman will baptize her son’s forehead with a trembling hand and bless him for the war, because the press and political leaders will assure her that he is going to defend the fatherland. In a fit of chauvinistic frenzy, she will send him to his death, and she will be unaware that another “fatherland” lies nearby, which also assures its “sons” that it is only defending itself.
Everyone is just defending themselves, and blood is flowing like a river. It has already been, and it will be, unless the proletariat averts a new catastrophe by destroying its very cause—capitalism. The pacifist philistine, frightened by the war, thinking with horror about the prospects of a new war, the bombardment of cities with gas shells, about moving the war to the rear - all this philistine dust, when the hot breath of war blows, will scatter to the sides and will not be able to prevent the war - this monster, walked the earth with an iron tread, making the earth tremble.
But if pacifists are scattered and unable to protect humanity from war, this does not mean that they are completely powerless. Insofar as there is universal suffrage, insofar as the ruling party is interested in having large masses vote for it, they have to be reckoned with.
There will be elections in France soon. If Tardieu and his party had said: "we are heading for war, we do not want disarmament, leave us alone with your pacifist nonsense, all this is nothing", they would have been dumped by another politician, one who could speak the pacifist language, the leader another party that would do the same thing but say something else. And every bourgeois group strives to remain in power. Therefore, the most militaristic government, in order not to fail, in order to preserve the possibility of preparing for war, the military alliances necessary for it, and to improve the quality and quantity of weapons, any such militaristic government must speak pacifist speeches.
We know how Japan dealt with China. Nevertheless, Mr. Matsudaira, the Japanese Minister of Military Affairs, who was the head of the Japanese delegation in Geneva, looked the conference straight in the eyes and said:
“Japanese public opinion has long concluded that aerial bombardment is not humane. We Japanese are convinced that the conference will find strength and means for the extreme limitation of bomb carriers.
That was what the minister said at a time when Japanese bombers were turning China's cities into ruins, killing old people, women, children, and of course they didn't ask them whether they wanted war or not and how they felt about aerial bombardment.
Thus, the Geneva Conference could neither be postponed nor, nevertheless, eliminated. Public opinion categorically demands from governments: prove to us that you are taking measures against war. That is why the valve was opened in the first days of the session, and the pacifist public opinion was given the opportunity to express itself. I have already spoken about the endless demonstration that went through the conference room, speaking out for peace.
An interesting incident was the speech of Vandervelde, the representative of the Second International. Picturesquely, striking the table with his fist, he said: "Gentlemen, as a representative of the proletariat, I have come not to ask, but to demand."
But immediately afterwards, Mr. Vandervelde declared: "I appeal not only to your political wisdom, I appeal to your prudence." And it was immediately felt that this was not at all an ambassador of the proletariat who had come to demand something from the ruling class, but a representative of the ruling class, an agent of the ruling class, sent to the proletariat as a spy and as a false organizer. He came to his brothers and his trustees to report:
“Gracious sovereigns and dear colleagues in arms! If you want to successfully deceive the proletariat, then do it more subtly, because patience is already running out and the proletariat is going to the communists in thicker and thicker waves.
That's why he talked about prudence. These notes sounded throughout his speech. “If only something came out of this conference. It won't work - it's a disaster. We will lose credibility and there will be political complications.”
Indeed, the conference will have to make some concession to public opinion. But this handout can only be an infinitesimal amount.
I had to characterize the work of the Preparatory Commission at its last meeting. In this speech, I argued that the commission not only did nothing, but, on the contrary, did a lot of mischief - soiled the place where the conference was supposed to work. The only result of her work was that he put the conference at a disadvantage in advance.
Lord Cecil, answering me, said: “The representative of the USSR is 90% right (it is in the protocol. - A. L.), But we have done something, and for a start, something is good.”
The conference will probably end the same way. If Comrade Litvinov said about the Preparatory Commission that the mountain gave birth to a mouse, and then stillborn, then the conference will give birth to a dead mouse, but it will be served on an expensive dish, with French sauce and decorated in such a way that it might seem at least as if it were a pheasant.
We will not allow this deception.
At the conference we counter the tricks of the bourgeois delegations with our serious proposals and thus expose the Geneva falsification of disarmament. We will have to clearly and definitely evaluate the outcome of the conference and show its true meaning to all great working people.
There was not a single country that did not speak out in favor of disarmament, and very often in favor of far-reaching disarmament. However, it is worth taking a closer look at the statements of delegations to see that each of them has a very different idea of disarmament.
The small countries (except those who make up the retinue of France and whose opinion is the French opinion) really want disarmament. Denmark, for example, really disarmed.
The minister of one of the small countries, a great pacifist, said to me with humor:
“We are for disarmament. Why do we need an army? If a strong neighbor wants to eat us, he will swallow us with an army and without an army, with or without resistance. So it's better without resistance! Why spill the extra blood? If a big neighbor of us, a small country, does not eat, it is only because the other big neighbor does not allow him to. But this is only a delay. When we see how huge they are, how cannon-like they are, how bomb-like they are, then, of course, fear takes us. Suddenly they will fight among themselves and us, like hares, right in the bag, so we won’t have time to gasp.
Such (small) countries are interested in seeing the big predators disarm and are ready to disarm themselves. It is very difficult for many of them to maintain an army, to pay salaries to officers. They do not have colonies, for the enslavement and retention of which you need to have a fleet and colonial troops. They have a great fear of the possibility of war and a passionate desire that at least some kind of legal order be created to limit international robbery, because whoever cannot defend himself by force has no other force than law. Therefore, they are true friends of disarmament. The Treaty of Versailles, a series of conflicts that have arisen in recent years and resolved by no means in favor of the weak, serve them as a cruel lesson and a formidable warning. But everyone wants to believe in what he likes to believe. Therefore, these delegations are the bearers of the Genevan illusions. And although the big powers are not inferior to them in anything, they believe, hope and form a glorifying choir around the League of Nations. Thus, their involuntary anti-militarism, while sincere, is still very harmful.
The position of Germany is quite peculiar.
She was given a direct and solemn promise: you lay down your arms, we, too, will disarm in a few time, and a new era will begin, which is promised to the population and the "soldiers" taken to the "last" war. Wilson sang about it sweetly.
Time runs. Germany is disarmed, the rest are armed. Germany begins to remind: disarm, keep the promise. But she is answered that no one made promises, and if they spoke about disarmament, then it was not a promise, but the hope that disarmament would be possible. I remember how Count Bernstorff, the former leader of the German delegation, spoke about this. With what great sincerity, in which all the anguish of the exhausted great people was heard, he threw the accusation of the Preparatory Commission: “Why do you promise, whom can you deceive now?”
But the other side of the German position must also be understood. The German government and the German delegation, in fact, do not hide it, just as the German press, and especially those standing to the right of the present government, do not hide it, that the German demand sounds like this: if you do not want to disarm, then let us arm ourselves.
And we know perfectly well that there are forces in Germany (perhaps the dominant ones at the present time) which would be unpleasantly surprised if the conference led to real disarmament. They don't need it. They want in the end to be recognized for their right to arm themselves, to return to the times when Germany had a powerful army and navy, which the German bourgeoisie considered as a necessary condition for human existence. “Whoever does not defend the right to arms,” said old Apponyi, the representative of Hungary, “must be expelled from the family of the people. If we did not demand the right to arm ourselves, we would be unworthy people, we should be treated with contempt.
I don't mean to say that everyone in Germany is of this opinion. But such is the position of the most influential bourgeois groupings.
Italy has a very peculiar situation. At first glance, it seems completely paradoxical. Mr. Mussolini is a very frank person, very sharp in his statements. His words are monumental. They are clearly printed. Anyone can read about what Mr. Mussolini wants and what he says to the Italians:
“The fascist revolution is first of all a spiritual revolution. We tell you - forget your class strife. There is no proletariat, no bourgeoisie, only Italy. We Italians must fight for our homeland. Our country is small, densely populated, the colonies are small and poor. We need land for expansion, large areas for trade. We will not win them over with speeches. On every path we come across one or another large country, and above all France. Therefore, we will have to fight sword in hand for our dear Italy, for our state. We must be worthy of our Roman ancestors who conquered the world.”
Now Minister Grandi, who superbly leads the Italian line in Geneva and with whom our delegation often has points of contact, delivered a profoundly disarming speech. He was enthusiastically applauded by everyone who believes in the sincerity of such demonstrations, who believes that, perhaps, there has been a turning point in Italian public opinion and the mood of the Duce himself. In reality, of course, this is not the case.
Grandi said: "All heavy artillery must be discarded, the heavy-ton fleet must be abandoned, military aviation must be abandoned, and after that it must be discussed to what extent other types of weapons must be reduced."
It might seem that he speaks Russian, although he spoke French, because it was close to those forms of disarmament that we recommend, if not in our first radical project, then in the project of proportional disarmament. But that is why there is a struggle between France and Italy, so that not only journal articles, but also the speeches of statesmen meet with appropriate criticism. The French began to explain the position of Mr. Grandi.
Italy has very weak heavy artillery. As for her heavy-tonnage vessels, these are old troughs. What about aviation? One need only look at the map to see that Italy is completely defenseless against air raids. Its main industrial centers - Genoa, Milan, Turin - lie in the north near the borders, and Italy itself stretched like a ribbon among the seas, and she has no such large city that would not be seaside. French technicians made a very correct conclusion: no matter how strong the Italian air fleet, it is beneficial for her to destroy it completely if other countries destroy it, because it is difficult for her to defend herself. It is in unfavorable conditions when fighting through the air fleet.
As you can see, the generous Italian proposal consisted primarily of hitting hard on the French offensive weapons.
Italy is interested in reducing the disproportion between French and Italian weapons. Then it will be possible to conclude military alliances with those who have contradictions with France (and there are many such countries), and fight, hoping for success.
The French are probably right in saying that the Italian disarmament is not a disarmament in order to create security for Litvinov from war, but a disarmament which is a maneuver that brings the possibility of war closer. It is unlikely that the Nazis abandoned their famous slogan "sacred egoism." It is this "sacred egoism" of Italy in her present position that dictates such a maneuver to her. This does not prevent, I repeat, that at the conference we can sometimes turn out to be close neighbors with the Italian delegation, because it is going far in terms of disarmament. On separate points we will vote together and support each other. But our goals are, of course, completely different.
A few more examples of how the imperialists in some cases allegedly advocate disarmament. The US agrees to naval disarmament, but within the framework of the Washington Treaty, * which gives them the right to have the greatest fleet in the world. The United States insists on a radical disarmament of the ground forces: "Instead of begging, forgive your debts, it's better to stop playing soldiers, reduce the cost of maintaining the army, and give us the money."
* This refers to the Washington Treaty of the Five Powers of 1921–1922. (USA, England, France, Italy, Japan) on the limitation of naval armaments. — Approx. ed.
This is the disarmament program that the United States advocates.
Convexly, despite the talented disguise, stands out the difference of interests between France and England, which at first glance go hand in hand all the time and support each other. The British speak extremely negatively about the submarine fleet:
“The submarine fleet is not a gentleman's weapon. His Majesty's self-respecting sailor likes to have the enemy visible and to have a bowling alley in good sunlight. The submarine is an inhumane, dishonorable weapon. Its invention is a mistake of human thought. Submarines must be destroyed. In addition, during the war of 1914, they attacked not only military ships, but also strove to attack ships with women and children, and prevented the transport of goods by sea.
The French put on a noble air and answer:
“We wonder how a democratic England can assert such strange things. As they say, a goat is a poor man's cow; and the submarine fleet is the fleet of a poor power. When a small, poor power has maritime borders, coastal provinces, and it is beyond its means to build cruisers to protect them, then half a dozen diving small ducks will still serve as its protection to a certain extent.
Small powers will gather around "noble" France and with the utmost energy will defend the "weapon of the weak" - the valiant submarine.
In fact, of course, there are other reasons why the British do not like the submarine, and the French love it. The late Brian, who cannot be denied wit, said:
"The English Admiralty is building dreadnoughts to catch herring in the English Channel, and we are building our own submarines to explore the bottom of this strait."
Equilibrium between England and France at sea is achieved only thanks to the submarine fleet of France. If it were not for the submarine fleet of France, England could consider itself the unlimited ruler of the seas.
If, under these conditions, one asks oneself to which of the proposed measures all delegations can agree, one has to say that none of them will be unanimously accepted. It is so difficult for the Geneva Conference to produce even a dead mouse.
What is the point of French sentences
The first place at the conference is undoubtedly occupied by France, and its position is of particular interest.
France from the very beginning took the standpoint: "First security, then disarmament." This means: “When we French cease to be afraid that someone will dare to take away from us what we have taken, we will begin to disarm.” But this is the same as "after the rain on Thursday", or "when the cancer whistles." How can you tell if the French can stop being afraid? There is no such device that would objectively show whether this is a simulation or a real fear.
And it’s not for nothing that Paul Boncourt, who helped Briand create this platform, is very proud of the ingenious invention: as if noble and at the same time, the case is out of place.
But the delegations of the governments of other countries, who want to win in the eyes of the pacifists, began to grumble that if there is no disarmament yet, then France is to blame. Mr. Henderson, president of the conference, made the following statement in his opening speech:
“We are going to disarm, and this has nothing to do with security. We will talk about security another time. The delegations that have come here want to talk about disarmament or arms limitation.”
France considered this a great audacity on the part of Henderson.
Pertinax, a well-known French journalist, wrote: “What shall we do? We must disarm, but we cannot. To sink this whole conference - and we can’t do that. ”
What needs to be done is to ensure that France is better armed than the others and that the conference does not produce any other results. To achieve this goal, the French proposal was invented. It is very transparent. You don't have to be a sage to understand what a wonderful, almost artistic trick this is. But this proposal can serve the French as a starting point for propaganda.
What is the idea behind the French sentence?
M. Tardieu, in defending him, began by saying that he considered it necessary first of all to secure the security of France. What is security? It exists, for example, in Paris, in Berlin, where you can walk the streets and not take a revolver with you. Why? Because there is a law that prohibits violence, and a court that can condemn those who break the law. Do nations have laws? There are, there are all sorts of pacts and treaties. There is also a court - the Amsterdam Arbitration Court. Do nations have security? No, the law is violated, court orders are not implemented. Why is this so? Because in all well-organized countries, besides the law and the judge, there are also gendarmes. Gendarmes are armed people who take by the collar the one who does not listen to the judge. Then one way or another he is punished, up to the deprivation of life.
Do nations have their own gendarme? No, the League of Nations has no gendarme, no armed force of its own. Nations that have been subjected to violence have to turn to "private individuals" for help, since there is no universal gendarme. And so France - a country, as you know, beautiful, valiant, civilized - was the first to attack the great idea: to create an international army. Instead of delving into a thousand disarmament projects, we French say: let's create an international army, and then we will immediately enter a period of prosperity and order, because every offense will be punished.
“You ask,” Tardieu said, “how to create an army?” This is precisely the main, purely French thought. There are a number of extremely unsympathetic types of weapons - offensive types of weapons, bomb carriers, large aircraft that can drop huge amounts of explosives or some kind of gas sources on cities, long-range artillery that has gone so far as to turn the deep rear of the enemy into a theater of military operations; the same can be said about huge ships - floating fortresses, about aircraft carriers, which expose the population of a hostile country to enormous danger. France agrees that all this must be abandoned. But this must be done not so primitively as suggested by Litvinov and the delegations supporting him. It is impossible to simply destroy all the rich resources of military equipment. Why spoil such good things? They can even be improved. Human thought can invent longer-range guns, and better bomb carriers, and better explosives. It is only necessary to hand over to the League of Nations all these new weapons: they will form the base of its army. Of course, Tardieu added, this does not mean that the fleet will be stationed in Lake Geneva and that all League troops will be stationed in Geneva. Each country will keep its own army. Moreover, if she has to defend herself, then she can use it. It is impossible to demand that a country, in defending its own life, not use the most powerful weapon - that would be inhumane. But the use of a detached army can be resorted to only in extreme cases, and, as a rule, it should only fight with the permission of the League of Nations. And on each such international cannon there will be a label: belongs to League of Nations, not France or England.
For everyone, of course, it is clear that this is not disarmament, but the arming, it is true, as if not of one nation, but of the entire League of Nations.
It is known why we do not belong to the League of Nations. We do not belong to the League of Nations because it is a system of bourgeois states created to ensure the dominance of strong states over weak ones and to suppress the revolutionary proletarian movement. Tardieu's "international army" would always be at the service of the bourgeoisie of any country against any revolutionary enemy of that bourgeoisie. And besides, it would be at the service of a certain combination of strong powers against any state that would try to oppose them. That is the only meaning it can have.
If we take seriously Tardieu's idea that the army of the League of Nations will prevent the unfair settlement of international disputes by armed force, then we need to think at least of this simplest example: the British will give the League of Nations two brilliant cruisers with the appropriate personnel, with valiant sailors, and suddenly France the British are at war, and the League of Nations says that France is right, not England; what, the English officers will go to smash England? Something is unbelievable.
Yes, the international army is a gendarme!
But Tardieu forgot to say that the gendarmes do not exist at all to establish justice. If a poor man came to him and said: “Mr. gendarme, my kids have nothing to eat, I’m unemployed, but a bourgeois lives nearby and feasts, help me take some of his property from him,” the gendarme would take him to jail, because the gendarme does not defend justice, but the possessors and their property, he defends the bourgeois order.
The international gendarme of the League of Nations is intended to protect the interests of imperialist France.
If Germany, driven to despair, declared: "We can no longer endure the Versailles robbery, all these reparation plans have brought us to the point that it is no longer possible to live, the people are ready to die rather than drag out such a life," she would not have been against herself. only France, but also the army of the League of Nations, the international gendarme, which exists in order to carry out predatory treaties.
It is clear how it is beneficial to France. This proposal was opposed only by Litvinov, who said that we came to disarm, not to arm, you are transferring the entire task of the conference to other tracks, and there is nothing to hide that this international army will protect those who now have power. But although no one else objected to Tardieu, there were very sharp and agitated conversations on the sidelines. Neither England nor Italy would, of course, agree to accept this French proposal. And don't the French know this? They know. Why does Tardieu propose his plan? Because the French journals and the press of the countries associated with France will shout that if the conference has collapsed, it is only because no one wanted an international army. A great step forward towards the internationalization of life, towards the unification of peoples was proposed by magnanimous France, but her plan was rejected. The main French thesis in Geneva: “Without security, not a single step” is now taking on the following form: “Security is the army of the League of Nations. If it is created, we are ready to disarm. If nothing came of disarmament, then it is not we who are to blame, but others, including the USSR, which talks about disarmament, and when it came down to it, it was against the international army.
This is the basis France is preparing for itself for polemics. It's pretty clever.
To the same maneuver comes Tardieu's proposal for the internationalization of the civil air fleet. France has long been afraid that in the event of a desperate situation, one or another country (even Germany), which does not have a legalized navy, but has a huge civilian fleet, will arm it and use it, whether badly or well, for self-defense. Under the Tardieu project, each nation individually is deprived of the right to have its own civilian fleet; it becomes international, all aircraft factories are transferred to an international society controlled by the League of Nations, the operation of all air lines is organized and controlled there.
To deprive weak states of the last hope of protecting themselves from violence - that is the goal of the merciless French imperialist project, merciless and at the same time tactically very dexterous: like a tank, it crushes everything in its path, and outwardly very noble - "internationalism, security, equality of all nations, the triumph of brotherhood, etc.
Under these conditions, of course, it will be difficult to achieve anything sensible at the conference.
Before we left for the holidays, after two months of preliminary conversations, from which nothing came of it in the end, a very difficult question was posed: what to do next? Here we will meet on April 11 and what questions will we put: fundamental or technical?
Some say:
“How can you raise technical questions when you have not done away with the fundamental ones? Why will we force technicians to determine the caliber and number of guns if it is not known whether we will disarm the artillery? Why discuss all sorts of features of the military budget of various countries, if it is not known whether disarmament will be carried out in the form of budget cuts and restructuring? The first thing to do is to say that we are reducing, establish the method of reduction, and the technicians will determine how best to implement our decisions.
It would seem that this is correct. But this cannot be done, because if fundamental questions are raised, France will say: "If you accept our proposals, let's talk, if you don't, we don't want to talk."
But it is necessary to talk, because it is necessary to avert the eyes of pacifist public opinion from military preparations, it is necessary to give proof that in Geneva they are working on "appeasement of mankind." For this, it is necessary that the Geneva Conference exists for a long, long time and pretend that it protects peace between people and works seriously in this direction.
So you can not start with fundamental questions. But you can’t start with technical ones either! The conference would probably have come to a standstill if not for some of its very talented members, among them the well-known Ulysses of our time, Mr. Beneš, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Czechoslovak Republic.
Beneš has an extraordinary flexibility of mind. He sometimes puts it this way: "The two previous speakers have diverged radically, but I agree with both." He compares their statements and it turns out that it is as if in fact it is possible to combine them. Not surprisingly, it was Beneš who was commissioned to figure out where the conference should start: with fundamental or technical questions. He, like the wise Vasilisa, thought the whole night, and in the morning he came fresh and joyful, - he came up with. Making the gesture of a magician (“no fraud, only sleight of hand”), Beneš said:
“We will start with fundamental questions. We will discuss them, but we will not vote. Everyone will defend their position. For example, the French will defend an international army, while others will object to its organization and present their own arguments. We will tell them: now wait, we won’t vote, but we will give the technicians all the versions in order to check and clarify the arguments: how big the army should be, what kind of weapons should be included in it, where to draw the command staff, how to build a budget, where to quarter troops. That's at least a year's worth of work."
Indeed, in Beneshev's way, one can drag out a conference for a year, half a year, a year and a half - more or less - as long as necessary. At any moment you can say that the technicians have done enough work, let's now vote on fundamental issues, or extend the work of the technicians, because not everything is clear yet, you still need to look through and count all sorts of screws and nuts.
The design is extremely comfortable and extensible. In the beginning, as soon as we meet after the break, fundamental questions will be raised. If they agree on some trifle, they will vote; If they don't agree on anything, there won't be a vote at all. Then a long rigmarole will begin, after which, perhaps, they will agree on what to serve as a dead mouse.
Tasks of the Soviet delegation
Why are we taking part in all this? The work we are doing in Geneva is very significant work.
In the first place, we are really more interested in peace than any other country, not at all because we wish the bourgeoisie to live as long as possible. We make no secret of the fact that we are in a struggle against the bourgeoisie, but we are fighting it by peaceful means and cherish the opportunity to continue this struggle to the extreme.
When we blew out the largest blast furnace in Europe, when we completed the largest dam in the world, when we launched the largest ball bearing plant in Europe, every time it was a huge battle won, and a bloodless battle at that. We prove by facts that a planned socialist economy, even in a country with little culture, a technically backward country, enslaved for a number of centuries by one of the most barbaric governments that the earth has known, even under such conditions, a socialist economy in a short time gives brilliant results. We are in a position to create not only a foundation, not only a heavy industry, but by completing this priority work, we are developing our light industry more and more, raising our agrarian economy and the standard of living of our population on a socialist basis.
War is a hindrance for us. We don't need it. We need peace. We need to concentrate on our main business. By carrying it out, we will win tens and hundreds of millions of working people who, having become convinced of the correctness of our path, will establish on the whole earth the order that we consider reasonable.
That is why we are for peace. That is why, when one says: "Ah, all talk about peaceful aspirations is nothing but hypocrisy," then this proposition, which is true as applied to imperialism, being applied to us, loses all meaning. We are truly deeply interested in peace, because it provides us with victory.
Is the bourgeoisie interested in the world peace? We highly doubt it. Since the peaceful competition between the bourgeoisie and socialism leads to the strengthening of socialism and the weakening of capitalism, the bourgeoisie may come to the conclusion that it has no choice but to try to defeat us by intervention. When we are told: "You are too suspicious and believe every ridiculous rumor,"
WE ANSWER:
“Our fears are very justified, they follow from the whole situation. And when we see how everyone is arming and how easily aggressive combinations of powers are created,
WE ARE OBLIGED to show the working people of the USSR and the whole world that any hour a world fire can flare up,
WE MUST be exceedingly cautious and must call on the proletariat to the utmost vigilance - IT WOULD BE A CRIME IF WE DID NOT DO THIS .
But it is not so easy and simple for the militaristic bourgeois governments to unleash a war, to start an intervention against the Soviet Union. They continue their armaments, continue their military policy. But, as you see, in order to untie their hands, in order to gain time, they are forced to hide behind a bright veil and a Genevan play of shadows to hide the depth of the stage where genuine bourgeois politics is being carried out. We are interested in seeing the working masses of the whole world know why we are for peace, so that they know what genuine, real disarmament is and what a pitiful parody of disarmament that bourgeois diplomacy is slipping on them.
It is in our interest that the working people - and above all the proletariat - know that, simultaneously with rosy talk about peace, there are negotiations going on that smell of blood.
And it is not for nothing that representatives of sixty powers have gathered in Geneva, and it is not without reason that many of the most sophisticated politicians in the world have been sent there. Geneva is a place where everything is seen and heard, where the bourgeoisie itself has staked a lot, and where we have to play the role of vigilant guardian of the interests of the proletariat. That is why, although it is sometimes boring for a Soviet citizen to read about a conference, because there is an unceasing rigmarole, long, meaningless speeches are made, repeating one another, because the conference works like Penelope, who weaves by day and unravels the fabric by night, although everything this is so, we must follow - and closely follow - the events in Geneva.
The role played by the Soviet delegation in them is an important historical role.
You can also ask yourself this way: well, if such a mass of bourgeois diplomats and journalists has gathered, if so many talented politicians - representatives of the largest imperialist powers are preparing a war, then what can four delegates of the USSR do, having the honor of being renegades in Geneva, surrounded on almost all sides in any case, not friendly moods? Are we too isolated? Perhaps we are such an insignificant force in Geneva that the game is not worth the candle?
This assumption is not correct.
Perhaps not a single delegation enjoyed such attention from both the press and the public as the Soviet one.
Of course, everyone listens to their clever orators and applauds them, but one can feel that an intelligent bourgeois journalist applauds a bourgeois delegate, and thinks to himself: "Meli, Emelya, your week." And when a revolutionary comes forward, a representative of a new beginning, an ambassador of that great proletarian revolution that is inexorably advancing on the bourgeois world, then everyone's ears rise up, then everyone feels that they must listen and appreciate everything he says.
And the point is not that we have some special talents, but that the proletariat stands behind us, our workers' power stands behind us, our party, our Central Committee stands behind us.
The fact is that we are a piece of a huge unity - a gigantic communist headquarters and a gigantic army of the world revolutionary proletarian movement.
Theoretically, we are much better armed than the bourgeoisie. In details, sometimes this or that budgetary technician, this or that artilleryman or sailor, can be such an unusual deep expert that our expert will turn out to be weaker (although there were no such cases), but in posing general questions, in how positions are motivated, we are incomparably superior to the bourgeois representatives. Again, this is not pride. Just as one cannot now go into battle with a bow and arrow because firearms have been invented, one cannot do serious sociological work without Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is a colossal force, a colossal analyzer of all phenomena, the key to their knowledge. The bourgeoisie has rejected him because he burns her hands. But precisely the fact that the bourgeoisie has rejected Marxism-Leninism makes it scientifically backward. Do you often notice how this or that very gifted politician, when it comes to the accomplishment of a great real task, begins, as far as he can, to do economic analysis. But the bourgeoisie has neither the skill nor the preparation for scientific analysis. This puts us in an exceptional position, gives us a gigantic advantage.
Those who say: “Oh, what a rigmarole this conference is, oh, what a bore it is!” are not right either! We cannot demand that each of us be given a fun activity. Each job requires perseverance and patience. And in Geneva, a very serious thing is being done: the struggle for the public opinion of the working people of the whole world against bourgeois politics of every color and every caliber. And it is very significant that 1,500 pacifist societies, for the first time in the history of the British Chamber, voted in favor of our proposal and adopted all of Comrade Litvinov's arguments. This means that we have already created leftist pacifism.
Our delegation in Geneva is the vanguard group of the great proletarian world and is fighting day by day for the cause we all serve.
Long live the socialist revolution—the great common cause of the proletariat!
.jpg)
No comments