|
Transcribed
from:
Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946,
vol. VI: Eastern Europe, The Soviet Union. Department of State
Publication 8470, (Washington, DC : Gov't Printing Office, 1969), pp.
686-687.
NOTE: As with most telegrams, superfluous
words were omitted. This creates grammatical errors which are not
part of the transcribing, but rather an inherent part of the telegram itself.
At other times it appears words were mistakenly omitted from the original
transmission. The parts enclosed in brackets [ ] were inserted by
the State Dept. Text in red indicates
a quote of Soviet government sources.
811.20200(D)/1-2946 : Telegram
The Chargé in the Soviet Union (Kennan) to
the Secretary of State
SECRET |
Moscow, January 29, 1946--6 p.m.
[Received January 29--2:17 p.m.] |
267. In efforts to analyze basic thinking which lies
behind present Soviet approach to over-all questions of international affairs,
I think Dept would do well to bear in mind Soviet views on future of great-power
relationships as reflected in recent comments on Anglo-American economic
agreement. These comments reveal two aspects of Soviet outlook which this
Mission considers to be of basic importance.
First is complete Soviet confidence that US is faced
with employment problem which it is basically incapable of solving and
that it will attempt, albeit unsuccessfully, to solve this problem by exporting
on credit, i.e. at immediate expense of US Govt, on large scale.
Second is conviction that economic struggle between
US and Great Britain is bound to lead to acute political tension between
those two countries.
This last conclusion, which will have far reaching
and basic influence on Soviet policy, is a new note in contemporary party
line, and has only recently come to the fore. Most striking evidence of
it was given in recent public lecture by Professor Varga on Anglo-American
economic relations. Varga is the leading party theorist on capitalist world,
head of important Institute of World Economics and Politics and editor
of magazine of that name, and must be regarded as a responsible mouthpiece
of thought for influential Communist Party circles. In this lecture Varga
referred specifically to speech made by Stalin in 1928 in which it was
said that Anglo-American differences were the decisive differences on international
imperialism. Admitting that these differences had "abated
somewhat" during recent war, Varga said that
it was "inevitable that economic differences
would in future lead to more tense political relations, just as Stalin
had said".
I doubt that Varga would have drawn attention to
a Stalin speech from so long in the past unless this had been sanctioned
and desired by high party circles. For this reason I think section referred
to in Stalin's 1928 speech deserves careful attention as indication of
current Soviet outlook. Summary of that section follows.
Of all differences in capitalist world, that between
American and English capitalism had become the basic one. Wherever US tried
to expand it found British vested positions thwarting its path. What this
basic difference mean? It meant war. "When two giants
meet with each other, when there is too little room for them on the world's
surface, they try to measure their strength in order to decide by war the
debatable question of hegemony."
Second great difference in capitalist world was
that between imperialism and colonies. This in turn meant national colonial
wars and imperialist intervention in colonial countries.
Third great difference was that between capitalist
world and USSR. If at one time it had been possible to speak of a "certain
equilibrium, a shaky equilibrium to be sure but of more or less long duration,
between the two worlds, the two antipodes," it now had to be said
that this balance was coming to an end. This meant USSR was faced with
possibility of foreign intervention.
In these circumstances, capitalists were trying
to lull working class into false sense of security by "the
current pacifism, with its League of Nations, with its preaching about
peace and about outlawing of war, with its chatter about disarmament, etc."
Pacifism was a means of preparing war and screening such preparation. There
were crazy fools who interpreted imperialist pacifism to mean that there
would be no war. This was not correct. And most important of all was that
Social Democrats were the principal surveyors [purveyors?] of imperialist
pacifism in working class. Pacifism was preached by Social Democrats in
order better to prepare for war and to oppress working class and Communist
Parties in the rear by Fascist methods.
In consequence, following were duties of Communist
Parties throughout world:
(1) Battle against Social Democracy right down the
line, politically and economically;
(2) "Creation of united front
of workers of advanced countries and of toiling masses of colonies in order
to ward off the danger of war or, if war came, to turn imperialist war
into civil war, to smash Fascism, to overthrow capitalism, to set up Soviet
power, to free the colonies from slavery and to organize world wide defense
of the first workers' republic in history."
This is summary of passage to which Varga called
attention on January 24, 1946. I believe it might be profitably borne in
mind by others than those whom Varga's remarks were immediately addressed.
|
|