811.00B/1683
Memorandum by the Assistant Chief of the Division of Eastern European Affairs (Packer)
The Soviet Ambassador asked me to lunch with him alone today. After luncheon we had a long and frank conversation which was throughout carried on in a very friendly atmosphere. The Ambassador repeatedly indicated that the conversation was personal and that the views he expressed were personal.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Ambassador then referred to the decisions of the VII Congress of the Communist International and pointed to the significance of the change in the policy of that organization with respect to collaboration with socialist, liberal, and even bourgeois groups in other countries and to the fact that the Communist International now desires communists to render support to and collaborate with such groups to preserve democracy. He said the communists are sincere in this. I said that personally I was inclined to view this entirely as a tactical maneuver; that, of course, communists could be sincere in adopting such a maneuver, since it meant they would follow this line only as long as it was advantageous—it might, of course, be advantageous for many years. I referred to Dimitrov’s speech in which he said that this change does not mean the communists are changing their fundamental principles. The Ambassador said that of course they were not ceasing to be communists and they could not say that they were. I said that it was quite easily understandable that communists might very well endeavor to work in certain countries with other groups which they had only recently opposed, in view of developing Fascist movements in such countries, since it was only in Fascist countries that [Page 261] success in suppressing communist activities had been achieved; it was purely a matter of self-preservation for the communists. He indicated his agreement but said that he could not agree that this was not a change of policy. Such a change of policy, he added, could have been accomplished only with Stalin’s approval. I said I thought that if the change was in fact a change in policy, not a tactical maneuver,* it was, of course, significant; that communist leaders in this country and other countries might, however, find it somewhat difficult to explain to the communist party membership a change in policy involving support of and collaboration with groups hitherto considered bitter enemies, even to the extent of attempting to form what amounted to coalition governments. He said that might be the case. I remarked further that the world had before it an example of what communists had done, and might do, in a given situation by what had happened in Russia, after the formation of the Soviet Government, to other groups which had worked with the Bolsheviks:; that in the early days there had been members of the Soviet Government who were not Bolsheviks, such as Steinberg,† and that there was some reason to suppose that whenever it might be convenient for communists elsewhere to do so they would follow the Bolshevik example.
The Ambassador mentioned as being very interesting that portion of Dimitrov’s speech relating to the United States, particularly the portion relating to Fascism in this country. The Ambassador thought there was no Fascist movement of importance here. I said I thought it unfortunate that the Hearst press had incorrectly quoted Dimitrov as urging communists to support President Roosevelt. I remarked that the instructions contained in Dimitrov’s speech to communists to work for the formation of a Farmer-Labor Party here might be almost as objectionable to us, in view of our objection to interference by organizations abroad in purely American matters, as activities with respect to which we had recently protested. He said the interesting situation now exists that communists are instructed to preserve the existing order in this country, not to bring about its overthrow. I said we object to any interference from abroad. He referred to Fascist activities here and to the presence of German Nazi representatives in this country and said that similar representatives are not coming here from Russia. I said that evidently the Nazis are not as well organized as the communists, who have had persons travelling to and from Moscow frequently for the purpose of receiving instructions; that Browder has been to Moscow two or three times since [Page 262] November 1933. He said he did not know about Browder, that he thought from his picture he might be a very interesting man; that he would like personally to meet him, but realized that he could not. I said I thought if he did and it became known it would be likely to cause difficulties.
The Ambassador commented also on Darcy’s speech at the Congress, thinking Darcy took too much credit on behalf of the communists for the San Francisco strike.
Further reference was made to the resolutions of the VII Congress of the Communist International and in particular to one containing instructions of the Congress to the Executive Committee of the Communist International that the latter should as a rule avoid direct intervention in the internal organizational matters of the various Communist Parties. I said that I thought the American correspondents in Moscow had given the Communist International better than an even break on this, since they had omitted an important part of the instructions which went on to direct the Executive Committee to ensure closer contact between the Executive Committee and the various communist parties by more active participation on the part of the representatives of the parties in the work of the Executive Committee; this, I thought, by no means indicated there would be a diminution of control from Moscow over the various parties. Practically all of the resolutions, I said, contained instructions to the various communist parties. The Ambassador said that this was only “advice”. I answered that the resolutions used the expression “dolzhni” (must).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- In Dimitrov’s closing speech at the VII Congress, he stated: “Ours has been a Congress of a new tactical orientation for the Communist International.” (Emphasis in original.) [Footnote in the original.]↩
- Steinberg, a Left Social Revolutionary, was the first Commissar of Justice. [Footnote in the original.]↩