Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume IV

761.00/11–547

The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Smith) to the Secretary of State ¹

secret

[Moscow, November 5, 1947.]

Evaluation of Present Kremlin International Policies

The Warsaw Declaration of the nine Communist Parties, the aggressive attitude of the Soviet delegation in New York and the all-out ideological press campaign in the Soviet Union confirm that, despite soothing statements to the contrary, the Kremlin has not given up its basic aim—the defeat of capitalism and the conquest of as much of the world as possible. The recent reversion to aggressive tactics appears to be based on the belief that a so-called “revolutionary situation” has developed which if taken advantage of will permit the Kremlin further to consolidate its World War II gains and extend its influence and control.

The fulminations of Soviet statesmen and the Soviet press against imperialism, aggression, warmongering, interference in internal affairs and desires for world domination so accurately reflect Soviet practices, policies and aims that one sometimes wonders why they insist on calling attention to these matters.

However, on reflection it becomes clear that because these false accusations against others cause such confusion both the inconsistency of many Soviet claims and the long range consistency of Soviet policy are often forgotten.

A good illustration of the consistency of Soviet policies will be found in comparing the following peroration of Stalin’s address twenty years ago on the occasion of the Tenth Anniversary of the Revolution with the tirade against Social Democrats in the recent declaration of the nine Communist Parties in Poland.

“… After dissociating social-democracy from Marxism, the October Revolution went further, by throwing off social-democracy into the camp of the outright defenders of capitalism, against the first proletarian dictatorship in the world. When the Adlers and Bauers, the Welleses and Levys, the Longuets and Blums abuse the “Soviet regime” and extol the parliamentary “democracy,” these gentlemen mean by this that they fight and will fight for the re-establishment of the capitalist order in the U.S.S.R., for the preservation of capitalist slavery in the “civilized” states. The present social-democracy is the ideological prop of capitalism. Lenin was absolutely right when he said that the present social-democratic politicians are “real agents of the bourgeoisie in the labour movement, the labour lieutenants of the capitalist class,” that in the “civil war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie” they will inevitably range themselves “on the side of the Versailles people against the Communards.” It is impossible to put an end to capitalism without putting an end to social-democracy in the labour movement. Therefore, the era of the dying off of capitalism is at the same time the era of the dying off of social-democracy in the labour movement. The great importance of the October Revolution lies, incidentally, in the fact that it marks the inevitable victory of Leninism over social-democracy in the world labour movement …”^*

In the same vein the Cominform Declaration stated:

“A special place in the arsenal of the tactical methods of the imperialists is taken by the utilisation of the treacherous policy of Eight Wing Socialists such as Blum in France, Attlee and Bevin in Great Britain, Schumacher in Germany, Renner and Scherf in Austria, Saragat in Italy, etc., who endeavour to conceal the real aggressive nature of their imperialist policy under the mask of democracy and Socialist phraseology, and who in fact are in every way loyal assistants of the imperialists, bringing disunity into the ranks of the working class and corrupting their consciousness.”

There have been many zigs and zags in Soviet tactics since 1927 which have helped to confuse thinking about basic Soviet aims, but the more one studies past Soviet statements and policies the more one realizes how fundamental and deep seated the basic tenets are and how antagonistic they are to the aims, desires and hopes of Western democracy. The zigs and zags have run the gambit from out and out revolutionary hostility to the Popular Front with Social Democrats during the 30’s, the pact with Hitler, Big Power unity, parliamentary “cooperation” and now back to anti-parliamentary, anti-imperialist revolutionary hostility and noncooperation. All were tactical moves except the first and last.

Despite many window dressing statements and declarations to the contrary, a cursory review of the fundamental statements by responsible leaders and spokesmen at party gatherings or elsewhere during the past thirty years reveals the consistency of Soviet thought—fundamental hostility to Western democracy, capitalism, liberalism, social-democracy—in short to all groups and elements not completely subservient to the will of the Kremlin and a fundamental desire to make the Soviet Union, “the prototype of the future amalgamation of the toilers of all countries in a single world economy.” (Stalin’s Tenth Anniversary Speech, Nov. 1927.)

On the basis of actual Soviet propaganda and the recent Cominform Declaration, it is of interest to recall another statement by Stalin made in November 1927:

“It (the October Revolution) created that powerful and open center of the world revolutionary movement which it never possessed before and around which it now can rally and organize a united revolutionary front of the proletarians and the oppressed nations of all countries against imperialism.”^*

The Cominform Declaration ended with the following similar appeal:

“Therefore the Communist Parties must head the resistance to the plans of imperialists expansion and aggression along all its lines—state, political, economic and ideological—they must consolidate and unite their efforts on the basis of a general anti-imperialist and democratic policy and assemble around themselves all the democratic and patriotic forces of the people.”

In the past three years the Kremlin has been most successful in extending its influence and control by other than purely revolutionary methods. The Lübeck-Trieste line is for all intents and purposes the Soviet western frontier. This was gained by conquest, political maneuvering, trickery, duplicity and Comintern cunning. In this process the Kremlin has also used the freedoms of democracy and parliamentary[ian]ism to establish the “new (totalitarian) democracies.” By these methods it almost captured France, Italy and other countries and may still do so, even without the persuasive power of Soviet bayonets. But at the same time the Soviet leaders stepped on a lot of toes, exposed their real aggressive aims and finally antagonized many of their best admirers. They undoubtedly realize that most thinking people have caught on to their real motives and aims and now realize that the unspoken motto of the Kremlin is, “if you are not 100% with us you must be against us”. This accounts in part for the dropping of the mask by withdrawing from the Paris Marshall-Plan Conference and the Cominform Declaration.

If the Soviet leaders had not decided that they have gained all they could by “cooperation” and parliamentary infiltration and also that they have completely antagonized millions of former well wishers, they would not have adopted the openly aggressive anti-western policy nor have permitted the public announcement of the revival of the European Comintern. They also undoubtedly hope that through the World Federation of Trade Unions they have gained sufficient control of many European trade unions to throw the balance in their favor.

It seems clear therefore that the Kremlin now believes that a “revolutionary situation” has developed which calls for more militant tactics if it wishes further to increase its gains particularly in Europe.

In studying the actual situation in France and Italy it is perhaps worthwhile to recall Lenin’s definition of a revolutionary situation, made in 1915, which reads in part as follows:

“What, generally speaking, are the symptoms of a revolutionary situation? 1. When it is impossible for the ruling class to maintain their rule in an unchanged form; when there is a crisis in one form or another among the upper classes; a crisis in the policy of the ruling class which causes fissures, through which the discontent and indignation of the oppressed masses burst forth …; 2. When the want and suffering of the oppressed classes have become more acute than usual; 3. When as a consequence of the above causes, there is a considerable increase in the activities of the masses, who in peace time quietly allow themselves to be robbed, but who in turbulent times are drawn both by the circumstances of the crisis and the “upper classes” themselves into independent historical action.”^†

It is possible that Stalin in surveying the gains made in Eastern Europe and in giving his consent to the Cominform Declaration recalled his own “revolutionary situation” prophesy made in 1924:

“Most probably the world revolution will develop along the line of a series of new countries dropping out of the system of imperialist countries as a result of revolution, while the proletarians of these countries will be supported by the proletariat of the imperialist states.”^‡ (i.e., The “new democracies” and the World Federation of Trade Unions particularly the CGT in France and CGIL in Italy.)

That these fundamental tenets have continued to guide the thought of Soviet leaders is clear from the following pronouncements as well as from the recent Warsaw Declaration. Zhdanov in his Cominform speech used almost the same words as Stalin used in 1924:

“… The second world war and the defeat of Fascism, the weakening of the world positions of capitalism, and the reinforcement of the anti-fascist movement, led to the disappearance from the imperialist system of a number of countries in Central and South Eastern Europe …”

In his important letter of February 12, 1938 in reply to Comrade Ivanov, Stalin in explaining that the final victory of socialism could not be achieved as long as Capitalist encirclement existed, reminded Comrade Ivanov of Lenin’s admonition, “the continual existence for a long time of a Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist states is unthinkable. Eventually, either one or the other will win out.”²

Again in his election speech of February 9, 1946,³ Stalin reiterated the same general thought. “Marxists have more than once stated that the capitalist system of world economy contains elements of universal crisis and military conflict, that, in view of that, the development of world capitalism in our time does not proceed smoothly and evenly, but through crises and catastrophic wars.”

Having failed after the first world war successfully to capitalize on the “revolutionary situation,” the Kremlin after the second world war used all possible dodges, tricks, and maneuvers through parliamentary or other means to wean away from the “imperialist system” as many states as possible. These tactics have paid good dividends in the establishment of the Lübeck-Trieste Line. On the other hand, the efforts to capture France and Italy by parliamentary means have so far not only failed but the unilateral noncooperation policies of the Kremlin have so antagonized the rest of the world as to bring about the situation the Soviet leaders fear most, a virtual coalition against them.

It seems clear, therefore, that other methods having been exhausted and believing that a “revolutionary situation” is developing, the Kremlin has decided to revert to the basic Bolshevik policy of extralegal activities, strikes, intimidation, all-out smear campaigns, and threats, in order further to extend its influence and control. The stakes are high but the Kremlin undoubtedly considers the chances of success better than fifty percent. If it can win control of France, all of Europe will fall in line. If it fails to obtain this ultimate goal it hopes by strikes, sabotage and other maneuvers to nullify the full effectiveness of the Marshall Plan. Furthermore once we are fully committed to saving Europe they may then, if they deem it appropriate, shift their principal efforts to the Far East and Colonial Areas. On the other hand, if they succeed in gaining control of Europe, the front door to the Colonial Areas will automatically be opened to them.

The Kremlin therefore hopes to take full advantage of the growing European economic crisis, the development of which it will assist in every way possible, and hopes that in the long run the predicated economic crisis in the United States will force us to withdraw our attention from Europe and thus permit the Kremlin to take over. If it is unsuccessful in these efforts, the consolidation of the Communist forces announced at Warsaw will facilitate the adoption of a strong defensive position against anti-Communist forces.

Despite the aggressive tactics outlined above, it seems clear for many reasons, particularly the apathy and lack of ideological enthusiasm on the part of certain of Soviet people, coupled with the need of the Kremlin to rebuild its economic-industrial potential, that it neither desires or will force the issue to such a point as to become involved in a major war. The possibility cannot be overlooked, however, that these aggressive tactics may cause a serious incident to take place which, of course, might bring about an undesired war.

Thus on the eve of the 30th Anniversary of the Revolution, it appears that the Soviet leaders have taken a basic decision which may be summarized as follows:

Having gained all it can by exploiting the essentially non-Marxist-Leninist opportunities opened to it by World War II, the Kremlin has openly reverted, at least for the time being, to what has always been its fundamental policy, the irreconcilability of Socialism and Capitalism, and has decided to try to take advantage of what it believes to be a “revolutionary situation,” in an effort to consolidate the gains already won and further to increase its power, influence and control.

We must recognize these factors and adopt positive policies to counteract them. One of the most effective ways to prevent the success of these maneuvers is to get over to the masses of Europe as well as the rest of the world the realities of life under the Soviet totalitarian police system. If this can be done on an objective continuing basis, the Kremlin’s policies will be ineffective and it will lose much of its influence in the world at large. If the majority of the workers and peasants of Western Europe realize what their plight would be under a Soviet controlled regime they would not be so susceptible to Soviet propaganda claims. They would put their shoulders to the wheel to bring about the economic recovery fostered by the Marshall Plan and the Kremlin inspired “revolutionary situation” would vanish into thin air.

How long the Kremlin will continue openly to follow revolutionary tactics will depend to a large extent on our own strength and firmness, our success in exposing the realities of life under the Soviet system, and particularly in the effectiveness with which we complement our plans for stabilizing conditions. Soviet leaders fish in troubled waters, and think primarily in terms of relative power. Faced with resolute determination on the part of the democratic world, they will halt and probably will retreat.

If we remain calm, firm and strong; do our part to place in order the household of western democracy, and demonstrate that free enterprise can outstrip economic regimentation, we have little to fear. If, on the other hand, at this most critical time, we fail to maintain our strength and to take firm, positive and immediate action to meet the Soviet threat, to counter their political and economic offensive, and to force them to withdraw from their advancing positions, we will be confronted first by a Soviet controlled Europe. Following this, inevitably, the territory from the North Cape to Dakar and from the Bering Straits to the Dutch Indies will be painted red on the map, while we remain virtually alone to face a menacing and powerful hegemony.

1. This memorandum was enclosed in despatch 1809 from Moscow, dated November 5. The covering despatch explained that the memorandum had been “prepared by officers of the Embassy staff.” The memorandum was “an attempted evaluation of the reasons for the hardening anti-Western Soviet Line and the creation of the newly formed Cominform.” Among the general conclusions reached was that the Kremlin had decided that “the economic crisis in Europe and the general unstable conditions have brought about a ‘revolutionary situation’ which it hopes to exploit in an effort to consolidate the gains already won and further to increase its influence and control in Europe.” The Embassy sent copies of this despatch to the Embassies in Belgrade and Paris. In a memorandum of December 12, Francis B. Stevens, Associate Chief of the Division of Eastern European Affairs, listed 17 additional missions and 10 consulates to which copies of this despatch should be sent.
2. All underlined phrases in italics in original. [Footnote in the source text. These phrases are here printed in italics.]
3. All underlined phrases in italics in original. [Footnote in the source text. These phrases are here printed in italics.]
4. Lenin: “Collapse of the Second International” 1915, Selected Works Vol. V. p. 174. [Footnote in the source text.]
5. Stalin: “The Tactics of the Russian Communists” Dec. 17, 1924. [Footnote in the source text.]
2. See despatch 971 from Moscow on February 19, 1938, for the text of the letters from Ivan Filippovich Ivanov and from Stalin, Foreign Relations, The Soviet Union, 1933–1939, pp. 520–527, 524.
3. For comments on this speech by Stalin, see telegram 408 from Moscow on February 12, Foreign Relations, 1946, vol. vi, p. 694.