761.00/10–3046: Telegram
The Chargé in the Soviet Union (Durbrow) to the Secretary of State
us urgent
[Received October 30—2:35 p.m.]
4016. While it is hoped that Stalin’s answers to questions from [Page 795] head of United Press may presage a more conciliatory Soviet policy, it is feared that they were largely designed to confuse and deceive the West.60
There is no need to analyze all Stalin’s statements point by point. In general it can be said that the democracies might be justified in succumbing to soothing strains of Stalin’s lullaby were it not for cacophony created by steady blare of martial themes issuing in mounting crescendo from all other official media of propaganda.
Stalin’s statement that he did not agree with Secretary’s statement that tension between USSR and USA was increasing was wholly disingenuous in light of Kremlin inspired press campaign attributing aggressive intentions not only to American “reactionaries” but also to American Government. This statement takes on qualities of downright dishonesty when it is recognized that under Kremlin direction Party ideologies are publicly declaring day in and day out that American “imperialism” is laying foundations for new world war.
Stalin’s diagnosis that Churchill and his supporters in Britain and USA are most serious threat to world peace and Stalin’s prescription for avoiding a new war—that Churchill and his supporters be exposed and restrained—are obvious political quackery. Stalin knows as well as American man in the street that most serious threat to peace is Soviet expansionism. Furthermore, according to logic of Leninist-Stalinist doctrine (currently being reemphasized), if not by other forms of logic, there can be no sure avoidance of war so long as USSR is motivated by Leninist-Stalinist doctrine and rest of world remains free.
Stalin’s indifference to US warships in Mediterranean and his statements that USSR does not have atomic bomb and atomic energy should be subjected to strict international control are designed to convey an impression of Soviet serenity and “peace loving” intentions. These statements, so in contradiction to bellicose tone of Soviet press on same subject, serve as a background for Stalin’s expression of continuing interest in receiving loan from USA. Having implied that the Secretary was an alarmist, having professed an attitude of calm [Page 796] confidence and atomic impotence and having genuflected in direction of international authority he announced that “you can do business with Stalin”. It is difficult to believe that these assurances did not have in Stalin’s mind relation to one another and that they were not made with an eye to current American political scene. Recently Soviet press has displayed considerable interest in forthcoming elections and in a public lecture it was made plain that USSR favored “progressives” in Democratic Party. Foregoing points made by Stalin could scarcely have been better designed to undercut present American policy towards USSR by giving political ammunition to element critical of a firm policy.
Being “most faithful” disciple of Lenin, Stalin has not only in answers discussed above but throughout his series of replies to Hugh Baillie, followed injunctions of his master who said, “we have to use any ruse, dodge, trick, cunning, unlawful methods, concealment, veiling of the truth”.
Department repeat to London, banking and Tokyo.
- Ambassador Jefferson Caffery reported from Paris in telegram 5464 on October 31, 1946, 8 p.m., that a high official of the French Foreign Office summed up the general consensus of opinion when he said that “Soviet speeches are of little importance as an indication of long-range Soviet policy. They are rather tactical pronouncements which vary according to the existing situation. When Moscow by its acts has proved its good faith, control of atomic energy can be honestly discussed but until that time it would be a world disaster to destroy your atom bombs or give the secret to the Soviets”. (761.00/10–3146) From Vatican City, Franklin C. Gowen, a Foreign Service Officer, stated in his telegram 105 on November 4, 1946, 3 p.m., that the Pope had remarked to him the previous day at his country residence: “We cannot have faith in Stalin’s statements to the United Press, but some people will believe him. Like Hitler did, he frequently gives assurances of his peace-loving intentions.” (761.00/11–446)↩