711.61/11–246: Telegram
The Chargé in the Soviet Union (Durbrow) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 2—7:40 a.m.]
4046. With considerable gratification Soviet press has been reviewing American reaction to Stalin’s and Molotov’s recent statements. Possibly revealing Soviet wish as father to American thought, Pravda October 30, quoted [“] a well-known American correspondent” who was alleged to have stated “with feeling ‘I am now convinced that we can collaborate with Soviet Union’”.
It may be of interest at this juncture to review fundamental Soviet attitude toward those elements in USA who “feel” that USA can collaborate with USSR, those groups to whom Soviet press refers as “progressives”.
For months now Kremlin mouthpieces have been asserting that only obstacle to amicable USA–USSR relations are monopolist capitalists and other reactionaries in USA and their tools in American Government. They have gone so far in this connection as to cite names: Hoover, Hearst, Vandenberg, Baruch, Lippmann and Harriman. Elimination of those “malevolent forces” and their replacement by “progressives”, Soviet press implies, would smooth way for friendly co-existence. With regard to this group, too, names have been given: Wallace, Morgenthau, Pepper and representatives DeLacy and Patterson.
Were those persons designated by Soviet press as “progressives” to assume administrative authority in USA, would USSR alter its attitude toward USA and consent to “increasingly broad and friendly cooperation and mutual help” described by Molotov in his speech before General Assembly several days ago? Answer to this question turns on basic issue of whether Kremlin has abandoned fundamentals of Communist ideology or whether it still adheres to basic Leninist-Stalinist tenets. If rulers of Russia have abandoned dogma of Communist infallibility and Party dictatorship, then it might be possible for USSR and an American Government of “progressives” to exist in same world on live and let live basis. If, however, Leninist-Stalinist doctrine still has validity as motivating force of USSR, then an American “progressive” administration could hope in long run for scarcely more favorable attention than present administration.
Post-war events in USSR and pronouncement by Soviet leaders (excepting Stalin’s to Werth and Baillie) combine to create positive impression that Kremlin has hit sawdust trail in revival of old-time Leninist religion. There is no need to repeat here evidence of these phenomena which we have been reporting during past months. Fact [Page 799] that Soviet people view this Marxist evangelism with exhausted apathy (an experienced observer having close contact with Russian people told us today that morale is now lowest he has ever seen) has for present at least slight bearing on formulation of Soviet foreign policy. Therefore, it is logical to assume that in this most schematic of states a return to a revival of Communist orthodoxy involves a revival of historic attitudes and tactics of communism.
This in turn means that current Kremlin view of American “progressives” is in all likelihood patterned on historical Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist attitude toward bourgeois Liberals. From the conspiratorial period when Lenin used and then destroyed Mensheviks until full flower of Soviet power when Stalin sought to use and now seeks to destroy German Social Democrats, Russian communism has viewed bourgeois Liberals as tactical allies—allies to be temporarily exploited when possible and always to be liquidated when Communists gained ascendency over common foe and Liberals lost their usefulness.
It consequently seems evident that it is not for love of mass of American “progressives” that Kremlin has bestowed kind words upon them. It is simply that they can be currently useful to Kremlin. Were Stalin to have his wish and most outspoken American resistance to Soviet expansionism eliminated, Kremlin would thereupon set about eliminating next most active group. Reduced to ultimate, only elements in USA genuinely acceptable to Kremlin are not those willing to collaborate with USSR, but those willing to subject USA to Soviet domination.
There is no reason to believe that Stalin now entertains any more tolerant attitude toward non-Soviet world than that of Lenin who said, “We cannot live peacefully—either one side or the other will eventually win out. We have not forgotten that war will come back. We cannot live in peace—memorial services will be sung either over the Soviet Republic or over world capitalism.” But until this takes place, the principal rule is “to dodge and maneuver”.
Dept repeat London, Paris, Nanking, Tokyo.