811.42700 (R)/11–448: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Smith) to the Secretary of State
2547. I heartily support vigorous line of direct attack in exposing Soviet methods, policies and ideology evident in recent VOA broadcasts and in public statements and speeches of our representatives in Paris1 and political leaders at home. As seen from Moscow, good results already seem clear from defensive line Vishinsky and Soviet delegation have been obliged to adopt in Paris, and same could be said for Soviet efforts justify their position Berlin question. However, there is an essential corollary to this policy of which we have not, in my opinion, been making full and proper use. This is the old but effective tactical weapon of clearly distinguishing between ruler and ruled.
If in our broadcasts and public utterances we do not make this distinction, we tend to identify the policies and methods of the Soviet Government with the desires of the Russian people and thereby play directly into the hands of the Kremlin which, recognizing the importance of Russian public opinion, is engaged in colossal propaganda effort to ensure public support for its domestic and foreign policies. While concealing or striving to conceal from the Russian people the aggressive policies and actions which have aroused opposition and [Page 931] counter-measures in the outside world, the Soviet leaders seize upon these latter manifestations to persuade the public that they are directed against the Russian people. To counter this Soviet objective we should always place the blame and responsibility where it belongs—i.e., on the shoulders of the government and party led by a small group of fanatical men and at same time we should always emphasize we have no quarrel with Russian people with whose legitimate aspirations and struggle for a better life we have only sympathy and a desire to be helpful. We should explain our hope to live in peace and friendship with the Russian people, a hope constantly being frustrated by the action of their government and leaders in isolating them from normal relations with the rest of the world.
By utilizing this approach upon every suitable occasion in official speeches, in international gatherings and especially in forum of UN we attain the advantage of making it more difficult for Soviet leaders to identify themselves and their policies with wishes of the Russian people and it gives us the opportunity of presenting this appeal directly to Russians over VOUSA. Frequently done it should gradually by sheer repetition reach the consciousness of large numbers in this country.
The above considerations are not new to Department or our delegation at UN. Churchill used this approach effectively in his Llandudno speech2 and has used it often in past as have others. While from Moscow we have not been able to follow in intimate detail the course of debates in UN, we believe that British representatives have utilized this tactic perhaps more frequently than our delegation though Mrs. Roosevelt’s3 Sorbonne speech struck the note effectively.
- The General Assembly of the United Nations was meeting in Paris between September 21 and December 12, 1948.↩
- Winston S. Churchill, wartime British Prime Minister, had spoken on October 9 at the annual conference of the Conservative Party in strong opposition to the policies and actions of the Soviet Union.↩
- Anna Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was a member of the United States delegation to the General Assembly.↩