761.00/10–446: Telegram
The Chargé in the Soviet Union (Durbrow) to the Secretary of State
[Received 5:17 p.m.]
3652. Emb’s 3572, September 25. So far as Soviet press is concerned, Stalin’s answers to Werth has not brought about broad departure to new tactical line. Not only did press fail to comment editorially on Stalin’s statements, but propaganda has continued in contradiction to them. Not a day has passed but that apparition of American and British aggression has continued to be conjured up in Soviet press. Far from playing down dogma of capitalist encirclement there appeared in Komsomolshaya Pravda September 28 most uncompromising statements on this doctrine since 1930:
- (1)
- “Remnants of capitalism are fed by capitalist encirclement in which our country finds itself”.
- (2)
- “Most important function of dictatorship of working class is defense of Socialist conquests against attacks from outside. While we live in capitalist encirclement danger of military attack from outside exists”.
- (3)
- “Even under complete communism, if capitalist encirclement is not abolished, state will be preserved, and consequently dictatorship of working class as well as guiding role of party in this dictatorship”.
- (4)
- “But state and dictatorship will wither away under communism, if capitalism encirclement is liquidated”.
Flow of material on capitalist encirclement and forebodings of coming war have continued not because Stalin’s statements were only for export and were overlooked in bulk of Soviet publications. Werth–Stalin exchange had full domestic news coverage. Even journal Soviet Sport (perhaps nervous lest it again be charged with a political interest only in “sport for sport’s sake”) carried these questions and answers in leading position on front page. And Pionerskaya Pravda, paper published for pioneers (children age 10 to 15), devoted more than half of front page to this historic quiz program. So it is not for lack of knowledge of what Stalin said to Werth that Soviet press has proceeded as though Stalin had never pronounced comparatively conciliatory sentiments to Western democracies.
These developments seem to confirm suggestion that Stalin’s pronouncement was only limited tactical move.
We feel that effect abroad was intended to be that set forth in first part ourtel 3572, September 25 to give ammunition and encouragement to those elements in USA and UK, advocating appeasement of USSR so that they can confuse issues for some time to come. We still feel [Page 790] that domestic reasons for Stalin’s statements were to relieve, however briefly, fear of immediate war which was growing among Soviet masses. In this connection, it is interesting that both Werth and London Times correspondent Parker (a sedulous fellow traveler) have told us they believe statements were designed more for domestic than for foreign consumption. Parker stated that Soviet people had become so alarmed by war talk that they questioned utility of rebuilding that which was about again to be destroyed. Our impression is that popular anxiety has been only momentarily relieved. Increased prices and cuts in bread rations have given rise to fear Government building up war reserves. An example of this anxiety is statement made a few days ago by a Soviet contact that remembering food shortages of last war she has begun to lay aside supplies of food stuffs for forthcoming conflict.
Conclusion on domestic score appears to be that while Stalin felt it desirable to give temporary respite from mounting anxiety of war, he believes Soviet masses must even at risk of inducing despair be goaded to greater production by continuing fear of eventual external attack.
Dept please pass to Paris as Moscow’s 390; repeat to Nanking, Tokyo, and London.