Stalin's quotes on war
What are the main elements of the law of uneven development under imperialism?
Firstly, in the fact that the world has already been divided among imperialist groups, there are no more “free”, unoccupied territories in the world, and in order to occupy new markets and sources of raw materials, in order to expand, one must take from others this territory by force.
Secondly, in the fact that the unprecedented development of technology and the increasing leveling of the level of development of the capitalist countries have created the possibility and made it easier for some countries to leap ahead of others, for the more powerful countries to be ousted by less powerful but rapidly developing countries.
Thirdly, that the old distribution of spheres of influence between individual imperialist groups each time comes into conflict with the new alignment of forces on the world market, that in order to establish a "balance" between the old distribution of spheres of influence and the new alignment of forces, periodic redivisions of the world through imperialist wars.
Hence the intensification and aggravation of uneven development in the period of imperialism.
Hence the impossibility of resolving conflicts in the camp of imperialism by peaceful means.
Hence the failure of Kautsky's theory of ultra-imperialism, which preaches the possibility of a peaceful resolution of these conflicts.
"VII Extended Plenary Session of the ICCI"
The world imperialist war was the first attempt to redistribute an already divided world. This attempt cost capitalism the victory of the revolution in Russia and the undermining of the foundations of imperialism in the colonial and dependent countries.
Needless to say, the first attempt at redistribution must be followed by a second attempt, for which preparatory work is already underway in the imperialist camp.
There can hardly be any doubt that the second attempt at redistribution will cost world capitalism much more than the first.
"VII Extended Plenary Session of the ICCI"
The redistribution of the world and spheres of influence, carried out as a result of the last imperialist war, has already managed to become "obsolete". Some new countries have come forward (America, Japan). Some old countries are moving back (England). Revives and grows, more and more intensifying, capitalist Germany, which was buried in Versailles. Bourgeois Italy is climbing up, looking enviously at France.
A furious struggle is going on for sales markets, for markets for the export of capital, for sea and land roads to these markets, for a new redivision of the world. Contradictions are growing between America and England, between Japan and America, between England and France, between Italy and France.
Contradictions are growing within the capitalist countries, breaking through from time to time in the form of open revolutionary actions of the proletariat (England, Austria).
Contradictions between the imperialist world and dependent countries are growing, now and then breaking through in the form of open conflicts and revolutionary explosions (China, Indonesia, North Africa, South America).
But the growth of all these contradictions means the growth of the crisis of world capitalism, despite the fact of stabilization, a crisis incomparably deeper than the crisis before the last imperialist war. The existence and prosperity of the USSR, the country of the proletarian dictatorship, only deepens and aggravates this crisis.
It is not surprising that imperialism is preparing for a new war, seeing in it the only way to resolve this crisis. The unprecedented growth of armaments, the general course of bourgeois governments towards fascist methods of "management", the crusade against the communists, the furious persecution of the USSR, direct intervention in China - all these are different aspects of one and the same phenomenon - preparations for a new war for a new redivision of the world.
("Notes on modern topics" v.9 p.322.)
The result of the protracted economic crisis was an hitherto unprecedented exacerbation of the political situation of the capitalist countries, both within these countries and between them.
The intensification of the struggle for foreign markets, the destruction of the last remnants of free trade, prohibitive customs duties, a trade war, a currency war, dumping and many other similar measures that demonstrate extreme nationalism in economic policy, have aggravated relations between countries to the extreme, created the ground for military clashes and set turn war as a means of a new redistribution of the world and spheres of influence in favor of stronger states.
Japan's war with China, the occupation of Manchuria, Japan's withdrawal from the League of Nations and its advance into Northern China further exacerbated the situation. The intensification of the struggle for the Great Ocean and the growth of naval armaments in Japan, the USA, England and France are the result of this intensification.
Germany's withdrawal from the League of Nations and the specter of revenge gave a new impetus to the aggravation of the situation and the growth of armaments in Europe.
It is not surprising that bourgeois pacifism is now eking out a miserable existence, while chatter about disarmament is being replaced by "businesslike" talk about armaments and rearmament.
Again, as in 1914, the parties of militant imperialism, the parties of war and revenge, come to the fore.
Things are clearly moving towards a new war.
("Report report to the XVII Party Congress on the work of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks" v.13 p.290.)
English capitalism has always been, is and will be the most vicious strangler of people's revolutions. Beginning with the great French bourgeois revolution of the late eighteenth century and ending with the present Chinese revolution, the English bourgeoisie has always stood and continues to stand in the forefront of the smashers of the liberation movement of mankind. The Soviet people will never forget those violence, robberies and military invasions to which our country was subjected a few years ago at the mercy of the British capitalists. What is surprising in this if British capital and its conservative party undertake to once again lead the war against the world seat of the proletarian revolution, against the USSR?
("Notes on modern topics" v.9 p.324.)
... the English bourgeoisie does not like to fight with their own hands. She always preferred to wage war by proxy. And sometimes she really managed to find fools who were ready to drag chestnuts out of the fire for her.
Such was the case during the great French bourgeois revolution, when the British bourgeoisie succeeded in creating an alliance of European states against revolutionary France.
Such was the case after the October Revolution in the USSR, when the British bourgeoisie, having attacked the USSR, tried to create an "alliance of fourteen states" and when, in spite of this, it was kicked out of the USSR.
That is how matters now stand in China, where the British bourgeoisie is trying to form a united front against the Chinese revolution.
It is quite understandable that the Conservative Party, preparing for war with the USSR, has been conducting preparatory work for several years now to create a "holy alliance" of large and small states against the USSR.
("Notes on modern topics" v.9 p.324.)
There can hardly be any doubt that the destruction of the Soviet Republic would entail the blackest and most evil reaction in all the capitalist countries.
("VII Extended Plenary Session of the IKCI" Vol.
From the history of Europe we know that every time when treaties were concluded on the alignment of forces for a new war, they, these treaties, were called peace treaties. Treaties were concluded that determined the elements of a future war, and the conclusion of such treaties was always accompanied by a noise and a cry for peace. The false singers of the world have always found themselves in such cases.
("XIV congress of the CPSU(b)" vol. 7 p. 274.)
If two years ago it was possible and necessary to speak of a period of some balance and "peaceful cohabitation" between the USSR and the capitalist countries, now we have every reason to assert that the period of "peaceful cohabitation" is fading into the past, giving way to a period of imperialist attacks and preparations for intervention against the USSR.
("15th Congress of the CPSU (b)" Vol. 10, p. 288.)
The hopes of the capitalists for the taming of the USSR, for its capitalist degeneration, for the fall of its prestige among the workers of Europe and the working masses of the colonies collapsed. The USSR is growing and developing precisely as a country of socialism under construction. His influence among the workers and peasants of the whole world is growing and strengthening. The very existence of the USSR, as a country of socialism under construction, is one of the greatest factors in the disintegration of world imperialism and the undermining of its stability both in Europe and in the colonies. The USSR is clearly becoming the banner of the working class of Europe and the oppressed peoples of the colonies.
Therefore, in order to clear the ground for future imperialist wars, to more thoroughly clamp down on “one’s own” working class and curb “one’s own” colonies in order to strengthen the capitalist rear, it is necessary, think the bourgeois tycoons, first of all to curb the USSR, this hearth and hotbed of revolution, which, in addition, represents one of the greatest markets for the capitalist countries. Hence the revival of interventionist tendencies among the imperialists, the policy of isolating the USSR, the policy of encircling the USSR, the policy of preparing the conditions for war with the USSR.
("XV Congress of the Communist Party of the Communist Party of Ukraine (b)" vol. 10 p. 286.)
There is nothing easier than to convince the peoples of both countries of the harm and crime of mutual extermination. But, unfortunately, the issues of peace and war are not always decided by the peoples. I have no doubt that the masses of the USA did not want a war with the peoples of the USSR in 1918-19. This did not prevent, however, the US government from attacking the USSR in 1918 (together with Japan, Britain, France) and continuing military intervention against the USSR until 1919. As for the USSR, it hardly needs to be proved that the peoples of the USSR, like the government of the USSR, they want "an armed clash between both countries never and under no circumstances" to take place.
("Answering Questions by Ralph W. Barnes" v.13 p.139.)
The most widespread form of lulling the working class and diverting it from the struggle against the danger of war is present-day bourgeois pacifism with its League of Nations, the preaching of "peace", the "prohibition" of war, the chatter about "disarmament", etc.
Many people think that imperialist pacifism is an instrument of peace. This is fundamentally wrong. Imperialist pacifism is an instrument for preparing for war and for covering up this preparation with Pharisaic phrases about peace. Without such pacifism and its instrument, the League of Nations, the preparation of wars under present conditions is impossible.
There are naive people who think that if there is imperialist pacifism, then there will be no war. This is completely false. On the contrary, whoever wants to get the truth must reverse this situation and say: since imperialist pacifism with its League of Nations flourishes, there will certainly be new imperialist wars and interventions.
("On the results of the July Plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks" v.11 p.200.)
On the one hand, to preach pacifism through the mouths of the Social Democracy in order to prepare more successfully for new wars; on the other hand, to suppress the working class in the rear, the communist parties in the rear, in order to apply fascist methods, in order to wage war and intervention more successfully later—such is the way of preparing new wars.
("On the results of the July Plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks" v.11 p.201.)
Chauvinism and the preparation for war as the basic elements of foreign policy, the curbing of the working class and terror in the sphere of domestic policy as a necessary means for strengthening the rear of future military fronts—this is what is now particularly preoccupying contemporary imperialist politicians.
It is not surprising that fascism has now become the most fashionable commodity among militant bourgeois politicians. I am speaking not only of fascism in general, but above all of fascism of the German type, which is incorrectly called National Socialism, for on the most careful examination it is impossible to detect even an atom of socialism in it.
In this connection, the victory of fascism in Germany must be regarded not only as a sign of the weakness of the working class and the result of betrayal by the Social Democracy against the working class, which cleared the way for fascism. It must also be regarded as a sign of the weakness of the bourgeoisie, as a sign that the bourgeoisie is no longer capable of ruling by the old methods of parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy, and as a result of which it is compelled to resort to terrorist methods of government in domestic politics, as a sign that it is not in more power to find a way out of the present situation on the basis of a peaceful foreign policy, which is why it is forced to resort to a policy of war.
("Report report to the XVII Party Congress on the work of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks" v.13 p.293.)
It does not interfere ... to consider briefly those plans for the organization of the war, which are now hatched in the circles of bourgeois politicians.
Some think that a war should be organized against one of the great powers. They think of inflicting a devastating defeat on her and improving their affairs at her expense. Let us assume that they organized such a war. What can come of this?
As you know, during the first imperialist war, they also wanted to destroy one of the great powers - Germany and profit at its expense. And what came of it? They did not destroy Germany, but they sowed such hatred for the victors in Germany and created such rich ground for revenge that they still cannot, and perhaps will not soon be able to clear up that disgusting mess that they themselves have stirred up. But on the other hand, they received the defeat of capitalism in Russia, the victory of the proletarian revolution in Russia and, of course, the Soviet Union. Where is the guarantee that the second imperialist war will give them "better" results than the first? Wouldn't it be more correct to assume the opposite?
Others think that a war should be organized against one of the militarily weak, but extensive in the sense of the market, countries, for example, against China, which, it turns out, cannot be called a state in the proper sense of the word, but represents only “unorganized territory”, needing to be captured by strong states. They obviously want to finally divide it up and improve their affairs at his expense. Let us assume that they organized such a war. What can come of this?
It is known that at the beginning of the 19th century they looked at Italy and Germany in exactly the same way as they look at China now, that is, they considered them "unorganized territories" and not states, and enslaved them. And what came of it? As is well known, this resulted in the wars of Germany and Italy for independence and the unification of these countries into independent states. This has resulted in an intensification of hatred towards the enslavers in the hearts of the peoples of these countries, the results of which have not yet been liquidated and, perhaps, will not be liquidated soon. The question is: where is the guarantee that the same will not happen as a result of the war of the imperialists against China?
Still others think that the “superior race”, say, the German “race”, should organize the war against the “inferior race”, primarily against the Slavs, that only such a war can provide a way out, since the “superior race” is called upon to fertilize " inferior" and rule over it. Let us assume that this strange theory, which is as far from science as heaven is from earth, let us assume that this strange theory has been translated into practice. What can come of this? It is known that old Rome looked at the ancestors of the modern Germans and French in exactly the same way as representatives of the "superior race" look at the Slavic tribes now. It is known that old Rome treated them as “lower race”, “barbarians”, called to be in eternal submission to the “higher race”, “great Rome”, and, between us, be it said, old Rome had some reason for this, which cannot be said of the representatives of the present "master race". And what came of it? It turned out that the non-Romans, that is, all the "barbarians", united against a common enemy and overthrew Rome with thunder. The question is: where is the guarantee that the claims of the representatives of the current "master race" will not lead to the same deplorable results? Where is the guarantee that the fascist literary politicians in Berlin will have more luck than the old and tried conquerors in Rome? Wouldn't it be more correct to assume the opposite? than the old and tried conquerors in Rome? Wouldn't it be more correct to assume the opposite? than the old and tried conquerors in Rome? Wouldn't it be more correct to assume the opposite?
Finally, others think that a war should be organized against the USSR. They are thinking of breaking the USSR, dividing its territory and profiting at its expense. It would be a mistake to assume that only certain military circles in Japan think this way. We know that the same plans are hatched in the circles of the political leaders of some European states. Let us assume that these gentlemen have moved from words to deeds. What can come of this?
There can hardly be any doubt that this war will be the most dangerous war for the bourgeoisie. It will be the most dangerous, not only because the peoples of the USSR will fight to the death for the gains of the revolution. It will be the most dangerous for the bourgeoisie also because the war will take place not only on the fronts, but also in the rear of the enemy. The bourgeoisie can have no doubt that the numerous friends of the working class of the USSR in Europe and Asia will try to strike at the rear of their oppressors, who have started a criminal war against the fatherland of the working class of all countries. And let the gentlemen of the bourgeoisie not blame us if, on the next day after such a war, they do not count some of the governments close to them, now safely reigning "by the grace of God."
Such are the war plans of confused bourgeois politicians.
("Report report to the XVII Party Congress on the work of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks" v.13 p.294-298.)
The whole present international situation, all the facts about the "operations" of the British government against the USSR, and the fact that it is organizing a financial blockade of the USSR, and that it is conducting secret talks with the powers about policy against the USSR, and that it is subsidizing emigrants " governments of Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, etc., on the subject of organizing uprisings in these countries of the USSR, and the fact that it finances spy-terrorist groups that blow up bridges, set fire to factories and terrorize the plenipotentiaries of the USSR - all this undoubtedly indicates we are told that the British Conservative government has taken a firm and resolute course on the path of organizing a war against the USSR. Moreover, in no case can it be considered excluded that the conservatives may, under certain conditions, succeed in putting together this or that military bloc against the USSR.
What are our tasks?
The task is to sound the alarm in all European countries about the threat of a new war, to raise the vigilance of the workers and soldiers of the capitalist countries and to prepare the masses, tirelessly prepare them to meet all and all attempts by bourgeois governments to organize a new war in full revolutionary struggle.
The task is to pillory all those leaders of the working-class movement who "consider" the threat of a new war a "fiction", who lull the workers with pacifist lies, who turn a blind eye to how the bourgeoisie is preparing a new war, because these people want, so that the war would take the workers by surprise.
The task is for the Soviet Government to continue, firmly and unwaveringly, a policy of peace, a policy of peaceful relations, despite the provocative antics of our enemies, despite the injections against our prestige.
("Notes on modern topics" v.9 p.327.)
We are teased and will continue to be teased by provocateurs from the hostile camp, asserting that our peaceful policy is due to our weakness, the weakness of our army. This sometimes blows up some of our comrades, who are inclined to succumb to provocation and demand the adoption of "decisive" measures. This is a weakness of the nerves. It's the lack of endurance. We cannot and must not play to the tune of our opponents. We must go our own way, defending the cause of peace, demonstrating our will for peace, exposing the predatory intentions of our enemies and exposing them as the instigators of the war.
For only such a policy can enable us to rally the working masses of the USSR into a single fighting camp, if the enemy imposes, or rather, when the enemy imposes war on us.
("Notes on modern topics" v.9 p.328.)
Our policy is the policy of peace and the strengthening of trade relations with all countries. The result of this policy is the improvement of relations with a number of countries and the conclusion of a number of agreements on trade, technical assistance, etc.
... the result of this policy is the fact that we managed to defend peace, not allowing the enemies to draw ourselves into conflicts, despite a number of provocative acts and adventurous attacks of warmongers. We will continue to pursue this policy of peace with all our strength and all means. We do not want a single inch of foreign land. But we will not give up our land, not a single inch of our land, to anyone.
("Political Report of the Central Committee to the 16th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks" v.12 pp. 260-261.)
Our foreign policy is clear. It is a policy of maintaining peace and strengthening trade relations with all countries. The USSR does not think of threatening anyone, much less attacking anyone. We stand for peace and uphold the cause of peace. But we are not afraid of threats and are ready to strike back at the blow of the warmongers. Whoever wants peace and seeks business ties with us will always find support from us. And those who try to attack our country will receive a crushing rebuff, so that henceforth it would not be habitual for them to poke their pig snout into our Soviet garden.
("Report report to the XVII Party Congress on the work of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks" v.13 p.305.)
Our banner remains in the old way the banner of peace . But if the war starts, then we will not have to sit idly by - we will have to go out, but to go out last. And we will come out in order to throw a decisive weight on the scales, a weight that could outweigh.
("Speech at the plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (b)" vol. 7 p. 14.)
Germany's withdrawal from the League of Nations and the specter of revenge gave a new impetus to the aggravation of the situation and the growth of armaments in Europe.
Again, as in 1914, the parties of militant imperialism, the parties of war and revenge, come to the fore.
Things are clearly moving towards a new war.
("Report report to the XVII Party Congress on the work of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks" v.13 p.291.)
.jpg)
No comments