761.94/1017: Telegram
The Charge in the Soviet Union (Henderson) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 11—3:52 p.m.]
43. 1. Today’s Pravda carries a long unsigned front page article entitled “Instigators of War” in which it attacks authors of “provocative rumors” appearing in the foreign press in regard to a possibility of a Soviet-Japanese war and takes particular exception to reports of an increase in Soviet military preparations in the Far East. The American correspondent Knickerbocker and several British papers are made the particular target for attack.
[Page 81]2. After stating that instigators of war “whether English or others” “will not succeed in seeing the Soviet Union follow “a policy on orders from anyone, or as a result of pressure from anyone, or on account of anyone’s promises”, the article continues:
“The Soviet Government, unwaveringly adhering to a policy of peace, will wage war only with aggressors, only with violators of peace, with the violators of Soviet frontiers. No stormy international orchestra of slander and excitement can shake the iron Soviet resolution and calmness.”
3. The article in question has been given so prominent a place in the newspaper and [that it?] is intended to represent a statement of Soviet foreign policy particularly with regard to the Far East.
4. The above passage is so worded as to make it subject to two different interpretations. Examined from a strictly grammatical point of view it would appear to mean that the Soviet Union will go to war only in the event of an invasion of Soviet territory by an aggressor. Since the article appears to be devoted almost entirely to the denial of Soviet intentions to attack Japan, it is believed that the passage above quoted is intended to relate only to the conditions under which the Soviet Government would go to war in the Far East. It contains no geographic reservations and taken literally may be construed to apply to Soviet foreign policy in general.
5. The article also contains an attack upon “a certain important personage from the Afghan Embassy”, apparently the Afghan Ambassador, whom it accuses of spreading “inciting rumors in regard to preparation by the Soviet Union for war with Japan”. The writer asks “was it for this reason that this personage was sent here by the Afghan Government.”
I doubt if this charge has any foundation. I have had numerous conversations with the Afghan Ambassador and have never heard him even mention the Far Eastern situation. It is my belief as well as that of other members of the Diplomatic Corps that this attack is motivated by Soviet displeasure with the attitude taken by him with regard to the Soviet request that Afghan Consulates in the Soviet Union be closed (see my despatch No. 899 of January 31, 193824) and can be partially attributed to the fact that he is the first dean of the Diplomatic Corps for many years who has made any real effort to prevail upon the Soviet authorities to grant to the Diplomatic Corps privileges and courtesies customarily extended by other governments to members of foreign diplomatic missions. It is believed also from the wording of the attack that it represents an effort on the part of the Soviet authorities to bring pressure upon the members of the Diplomatic Corps to prevent them from exchanging with one another their views regarding Soviet policies.
- Not printed.↩