711.61/12–2649: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Kirk) to the Secretary of State
niact
3181. Salisbury’s1 New York Times despatch on Malenkov article as indicating Stalin’s readiness to discuss “outstanding problems” with US passed without single deletion by Soviet censor after 36-hour delay, probable Kremlin clearance. This lends color to suspicion Malenkov article printed ahead of Molotov’s (Embtel 3159, December 212) precisely to arouse news speculation on possibility of bilateral US-USSR “settlement” thus cause confusion and disunity as did Smith-Molotov exchange in 1948.3 Dutch Ambassador4 has been spreading rumor in Moscow diplomatic corps that such bilateral talks already underway in Washington, George Kennan haying resigned in protest. I have received inquiries about this from British and French Ambassadors and have of course assured them that I know of no such talks and consider rumor wholly baseless.
Our estimate of true significance of recent Soviet publicity on “coexistence” of Capitalism and Socialism continues to be that it is obvious feature of “peace” movement. Gauge of its sincerity is accompanying bitter vilification of US “warmongers,” increasingly open incitement other nations to revolution, and manhandling of US citizens in China, Hungary, Czechoslovakia. Malenkov treatment of “co-existence” utterly unoriginal, sublimely illustrates Soviet capacity for pig-headed re-assertion of position already shown to be fallacious. What Malenkov says unlikely mislead any but woolly-headed border-liners, but fact that he said it may continue give rise to unsettling rumors as above. Depending on initial response of World press, Department may wash consider appropriate high-level statement to scotch rumors.
If publicity undertaken, worth noting that Malenkov and similar Soviet comment this theme resort to familiar trick of appearing establish truth of whole position by stating parts of it which nobody denies. Stalin certainly prepared for “co-existence” of two “camps” for some [Page 689] years, and certainly wants “cooperation” on his own terms, would like nothing better than “friendly” relations while he steals our shirt. Basic point at issue is not whether “war inevitable” but whether Stalin determined to foster world revolution by force and guile at cost of human life, dignity and freedom. Sole reason why he believes war ultimately inevitable is because, as he has said, he is determined to drive our way of life off the stage of history.
We feel here that appeals to “peace” at Christmas have an especial and insidious propaganda value against which it is difficult to take position, but which our Western Christian world must of necessity do its utmost to hold the wavering in the fold.
Sent Department 3181. Department pass London 348, Paris 450, Borne 84, Frankfort 103.
- Harrison E. Salisbury was the New York Times correspondent stationed in Moscow.↩
- Not printed: see the bracketed note in telegram 3158 from Moscow on December 21, supra. In telegram 3185 from Moscow on December 26, not printed, it was again noted that Malenkov’s article was printed before Molotov’s in the periodical Bolshevik, number 24, which seemed to reinforce the possibility that Malenkov might have acquired precedence over Molotov in importance, and that he had become Stalin’s chief adviser. “Only the most incurable wishful thinkers”, however, could believe that Malenkov would make a more reasonable rapprochement possible after they had read his November 6 speech. (711.61/12–2649)↩
- On the propaganda treatment in particular of the conversations between Ambassador Walter Bedell Smith and Minister for Foreign Affairs Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov at Moscow in May 1948, see Foreign Relations, 1948, vol. iv, pp. 858–866, passim.↩
- Philips Christiaan Visser.↩