To
grant bonuses for sabre-rattling and recourse to arms for
the solution of international problems -- in other words,
to reward and encourage aggressive super-imperialism --
is not to act in the spirit of the Briand-Kellogg Pact.
grant bonuses for sabre-rattling and recourse to arms for
the solution of international problems -- in other words,
to reward and encourage aggressive super-imperialism --
is not to act in the spirit of the Briand-Kellogg Pact.
Soviet Union - 1952 - Soviet Civilization
The dictates of simple self-preservation
and sheer self-interest, as well as special concern for the
welfare of workers and peasants everywhere, cause the
Soviet Union steadfastly to oppose international war.
True enough, the Soviet Communists are eager to see
Communist or socialist regimes established throughout
the earth. But Marxist theory predicts the eventual col-
lapse of capitalism everywhere from within and disap-
proves the idea of Communist countries seeking to extend
their system by conquest to capitalist countries. *
Although Soviet Russia considers wars of national
liberation such as the American Revolution justified,
it holds that the two world wars which have plagued
humanity in the twentieth century originated in a drive
against the freedom of peoples and were counter-revolu-
tionary in the sense of holding back peaceful and demo-
cratic progress. In the Second World War the fascists,
according to Soviet opinion, represented the most reac-
tionary elements in modern society. They resorted' to
domestic violence and terror, and then to external vio-
lence and terror, in a desperate, last-ditch effort to pre-
vent mankind from naturally evolving toward a more
cooperative economic system. And in their attempt to
turn back the clock of history, they aimed to conquer,
plunder and dominate the entire globe.
The Soviet Government has all along recognized
that the establishment of socialism throughout the enorm-
ous empire of the Tsars resulted in many difficult prob-
lems in world affairs and in a qualitatively new situation.
But except for a brief period following the 1917 Revolu-
? Cf. pp. 330-331.
283
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET CIVILIZATION
tion, it has insisted on the desirability and possibility of
peaceful co-existence between the socialist and capitalist
sectors of the world. It has argued that in spite of the
deep-reaching differences between the capitalist and
socialist nations in their economic and political systems,
they could cooperate to their respective advantage on
certain broad international ends. As Maxim Litvinov
once expressed it, the relative merits of capitalism and
socialism are not going to be decided by various kinds
of non-cooperation, mutual annoyance and pinpricks in
the international sphere, but by the ultimate strength,
efficiency and living standards of the two systems.
Premier Stalin has again and again reaffirmed the
possibility of peaceful co-existence between the capitalist
and socialist worlds. In 1927 he stated at the Fifteenth
Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, "The foun-
dation of our relations with capitalist countries lies in
allowing for the existence of two opposing systems. Ex-
perience has borne that out completely. " In 1936 he told
Mr. Roy Howard, head of the Scripps-Howard newspaper
chain, substantially the same thing. In 1946, when Elliott
Roosevelt asked Stalin if American democracy and Soviet
communism could live in peace side by side and without
interfering in each other's internal affairs, he replied:
"Yes, of course. This is not only possible. It is wise and
entirely within the bounds of realization. In the most
strenuous times during the war the differences in govern-
ment did not prevent our two nations from joining to-
gether and vanquishing our foes. Even more so is it
possible to continue this relationship in time of peace. "1
During the Soviet election campaign of March, 1950,
several of Stalin's most prominent colleagues emphasized
the same theme. V. M. Molotov, a Deputy Premier of the
284
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET FOREIGN. POLICY
Soviet Union and a possible successor to Stalin as Premier,
said: "We whole-heartedly support the Leninist-Stalinist
principles of the peaceful co-existence of the two systems
and of their peaceful economic competition. "2 Marshal
Klimenti E. Voroshilov, another Deputy Premier, as-
serted: "The Lenin and Stalin concept of the possibility
of the prolonged co-existence of the two systems -- social-
ist and capitalist -- constitutes the consistent expression
of the aspiration of the Soviet people to ensure peace,
security and the steady material and cultural progress of
mankind. "3
It is a fact that in the early years of the U. S. S. R.
Soviet theoreticians occasionally uttered dire warnings
about the "inevitability" of war as long as capitalism
existed. This loose talk, however, soon gave way to the
theory of the possible peaceful co-existence of the two
systems and to the more moderate view that danger of
war would remain inevitable as long as powerful sectors
of the capitalist economy continued in being. Since
World War II American writers and speakers, in partic-
ular, have stressed a few outdated Soviet quotations about
the inevitability of an armed clash between the capitalist
and socialist countries and have neglected the theory of
co-existence. Instead of thanking heaven that the Soviets
neither favor war nor believe it must come, these Ameri-
cans have gone out of their way to try to prove the oppo-
site; and thereby to condemn mankind to the horrors of
a Third World War. But we may be sure that neither
the American people nor any other are willing to accept
this mad doctrine of death by quotation.
The second point in Soviet foreign policy is that the
U. S. S. R. supports firmly the principle of collective secur-
ity as a foundation for international peace. It backed
285
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET CIVILIZATION
collective security unequivocally during the critical pre-
war period of fascist aggression from 1935 to 1939. It
stood ready and willing to participate in League of Na-
tions sanctions when fascist force on the part of Germany,
Italy or Japan was loosed against Ethiopia (1935), Spain
(1936), China (1937), Austria (1938) and Czechoslo-
vakia (September, 1938, and March, 1939). The Soviet
Government also favored League measures against Hitler
when he violated the Treaty of Versailles by going ahead
with rearmament in 1935, and with the remilitarization
of the Rhineland in 1936.
Not only was Soviet Russia foremost in exposing and
opposing these eight separate acts of aggression or treaty
violations; it also was the one major Power which sent
substantial aid to the invaded Spanish and Chinese Re-
publics, in conformance with its pledge under Article
XVI of the League to render assistance to countries under
attack by aggressors. Britain and France, on the other
hand, especially in reference to the Ethiopians and Span-
ish Loyalists, entered into official or unofficial agreements
which, with a touching impartiality, barred the sale of
military supplies to both the well-armed aggressor and the
poorly armed victim.
Time and again during the years preceding World
War II, Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov rose at
the meetings of the League of Nations, which the U. S. S. R.
had joined in 1934, and called for action against the
fascist and Nazi aggressors. On each and every occasion
Soviet Russia was unable to obtain sufficient response
from the Western democracies to make possible collect-
ive measures of real efficacy. The democratic Powers,
with the states that depended primarily on their leader-
ship, signally failed to implement their own formulation
286
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET FOREIGN. POLICY
of collective security as written into the Covenant of the
League of Nations. Soviet Russia, however, fought ener-
getically during this period on behalf of the League's
principles and thus became the outstanding champion of
those new methods of world cooperation which many
years earlier President Taft, President Wilson and other
American leaders had been instrumental in bringing to
the fore and which later the United States repudiated.
Specifically the Soviet Government, through Mr. Lit-
vinov, repeatedly expressed itself in favor of the funda-
mental Articles X and XVI of the League Covenant,
whereas Great Britain and France repeatedly demon-
strated their reluctance to put these Articles into effect.
Article X read: "The Members of the League under-
take to respect and preserve as against external aggression
the territorial integrity and existing political independ-
ence of all Members of the League. In case of any such
aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such ag-
gression, the Council shall advise upon the means by
which this obligation shall be fulfilled. "
Article XVI read in part: "Should any Member of
the League resort to war in disregard of its covenants
under Articles XII, XIII or XV it shall ipso facto be
deemed to have committed an act of war against all other
Members of the League, which hereby undertake to sub-
ject it to the severance of all trade or financial relations.
. . . It shall be the duty of the Council in such case to
recommend to the several Governments concerned what
effective military, naval or air forces Members of the
League shall severally contribute to the armed forces to
be used to protect the covenants of the League. "
When Mussolini brutally invaded Ethiopia in 1935
the Soviet Union advocated that the League act in ac-
287
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET CIVILIZATION
cordance with Articles X and XVI. In a speech at the
League Plenum on July 1, 1936, Foreign Minister Lit-
vinov expressed his regret that the members of the League
had not taken firmer action in regard to Italy's aggression.
After reaffirming Soviet support for Article X, he went
on to say: "I maintain that Article XVI has provided
the League of Nations with such a powerful weapon that
any aggression could be broken if it were brought into
full play. Furthermore, the very belief that it may be
brought into play may discourage the aggressor from put-
ting his criminal plans into effect.
"Least of all does the sad experience of the Italo-
Abyssinian war contradict this statement. In the present
case either because this was the first experiment in
applying collective measures, or because some people
thought this case had specific features, or because it co-
incided with the preparation for a more serious aggres-
sion elsewhere, to which Europe had to pay special at-
tention, or because of other reasons, the fact remains
that not only was the formidable machinery of Article
XVI not brought into play, but the tendency to keep to
minimum measures was displayed from the outset. Even
the economic sanctions were limited in scope and action.
And even in this limited scope the sanctions were not ap-
plied by all the Members of the League. . . .
"If I say all this in the interests of strengthening
peace, I cannot do otherwise than mention the measure
which the Soviet Union has always considered the maxi-
mum guarantee of peace -- I mean complete disarma-
ment. . . . But while this radical measure is in abeyance,
all we can do is to strengthen the League of Nations as
an instrument of peace. To strengthen the League is to
abide by the principle of collective security, which is by
288
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET FOREIGH POLICY
no means a product of idealism, but is a practical meas-
ure towards the security of all peoples, to abide by the
principle that peace is indivisible! We must recognize
that at the present time there is not one state, large or
small, that is not open to aggression, and that even if
the next war spares one state or another she must, sooner
or later, attract the longing eyes of the victorious ag-
gressor. "4
Because of faint-hearted support on the part of Bri-
tain and France, and because of America's complete
refusal to cooperate, even the partial economic sanctions
voted against Italy by the vacillating League soon faded
away. There were four main reasons in my opinion why
the British and French Governments did not wish to
enforce against Mussolini either economic or military
sanctions. In the first place, preferring fascism to social-
ism, they feared that far-reaching pressures against Italy
would topple the fascist regime and that genuine social-
ism would take its place. In the second place, they did
not want their own nationals to lose, even temporarily,
the economic advantages of trade with Italy.
In the third place, they were afraid that a defeat of
the Italian army by the forces of Emperor Haile Selassie
would give too much encouragement to the Negro popu-
lations of Africa against the imperialistic encroachments
of the white man. Even as intelligent a statesman as Jan
C. Smuts, several times Prime Minister of the Republic
of South Africa, thought that an Ethiopian victory against
a white nation would be a very dangerous thing. In the
fourth place, the British and French were already put-
ting into effect their considered policy of appeasing the
fascist Powers and letting them conquer and annex for-
eign lands on the supposition that they would eventually
289
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET CIVILIZATION
attack the Soviet Union and not the Western democracies.
The general appeasement policy, fear of undermining
the fascist dictatorships and plain reluctance to risk war
led England and France to make only a pretense of op-
posing Italian and Nazi intervention in Spain on behalf
of General Franco's rebellion against the democratically
elected Loyalist Government. Mussolini actually sent
an army of more than 100,000 troops to Franco's aid.
And the frequently expressed horror of high British and
French officials against violent revolution quickly sub-
sided when it was the fascists who were doing the revolt-
ing. The Anglo-French "defenders" of Western democ-
racy instituted an effective boycott on the sale of military
equipment to democratic Spain; and the United States
took the same attitude. Loyalist Spain was thus denied
its ordinary rights under international law and early in
1939 finally went down to defeat.
In 1937 the Japanese army invaded China proper, as
distinct from Manchuria, which Japan had invaded and
overrun beginning with 1931. On this second occasion
of outright Japanese aggression the League of Nations,
under Anglo-French leadership, spent much time setting
up committees and sub-committees to write polite notes
to the Japanese Government asking what its intentions
were. After a considerable delay the League decided that
while there was no general obligation for its members
to impose economic sanctions against Japan, such sanc-
tions were applicable on a discretionary basis. Of course
this very discreet action did not get anywhere; and im-
perialist Japan, looked upon by Tories the world over
as the great bulwark against Bolshevism in the Far East,
pursued its bloody course unhampered. Again, the Soviet
Union took its principled position of standing "in readi-
290
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET FOREIGH POLICY
ness to rebuff the aggressor jointly with other great states,
and small states too. "5
In March, 1938, Hitler sent his mechanized armies
across the Austrian border and annexed the whole of
Austria in the long-expected Anschluss. The Soviet Gov-
ernment vigorously protested this action and reaffirmed
its obligations under the principle of collective security.
Foreign Minister Litvinov urged a special conference to
consider the necessary means for "arresting the further
development of aggression and removing the accentuated
danger of a new world shambles. "6 Prime Minister
Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain rejected this pro-
posal and nothing came of it.
In September, 1938, the Nazi dictator brought to a
head the outrageous demand "of Germany for the annexa-
tion of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. The Brit^
ish and French Governments crumpled quickly under
Hitler's threats of launching a general war; and on Sep-
tember 15 Chamberlain made his first flight to Munich
to meet the Nazi Chancellor. While Anglo-French dip-
lomacy was busy selling Czechoslovakia down the river,
Mr. Litvinov, on September 21, made one of his greatest
speeches before the League of Nations Assembly at
Geneva.
The Soviet Foreign Minister reminded his League
colleagues that the U. S. S. R. had advocated strong meas-
ures of collective security against the aggressor at the
time of the attacks on Ethiopia, Spain and Austria. As
to Czechoslovakia and the Soviet treaty of mutual assis-
tance with that country, Mr. Litvinov stated: "We
intend to fulfill our obligations under the pact, and
together with France, to afford assistance to Czechoslo-
vakia by the ways open to us. Our War Department is
291
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET CIVILIZATIOH
ready immediately to participate in a conference with
representatives of the French and Czechoslovak War
Departments, in order to discuss the measures appropri-
ate to the moment. Independently of this we considered
that the question be raised at the League of Nations. . . .
[and that there be an] immediate consultation between
the Great Powers of Europe and other interested states,
in order if possible to decide on the terms of a collective
demarche.
"Unfortunately, other steps were taken, which would
have led, and which could not but lead, to such a capitula-
tion as is bound sooner or later to have quite incalcula-
ble and disastrous consequences. To avoid a problematic
war today and receive in return a certain and large-scale
war tomorrow -- moreover at the price of assuaging the
appetites of insatiable aggressors and of the destruction
or mutilation of sovereign states -- is not to act in the
spirit of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
To
grant bonuses for sabre-rattling and recourse to arms for
the solution of international problems -- in other words,
to reward and encourage aggressive super-imperialism --
is not to act in the spirit of the Briand-Kellogg Pact. The
Soviet Government takes pride in the fact that it has no
part in such a policy. "7
Indeed, as the negotiations went on between Hitler,
Mussolini, Chamberlain and Daladier (Premier of
France), the Soviet Government was not even consulted
by the British and French Governments. Those two Gov-
ernments brusquely turned down the idea of any con-
ference on behalf of collective security and instead came
to an agreement, behind closed doors, with the Axis dic-
tators for the partition of Czechoslovakia. On the even-
292
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET FOREIGN. POLICY
ing of September 29, following Chamberlain's second trip
to Munich, the deal was concluded and announced to
the Czechoslovak Government, which was required to
hand over the Sudeten territory peacefully to the Nazis.
The next day this Government acquiesced, although
adding that it "protests the decision of the Four Great
Powers, which was entirely one-sided and taken without
Czechoslovakia's participation. "
Through the Munich settlement the British Tories,
with the French men-like-mice following their lead,
aimed to isolate the Soviet Union diplomatically, to avoid
a military clash with Hitler, to strengthen European fas-
cism as the best insurance against communism and to
turn the Nazi war machine east against the Russians.
Instead the Anglo-French super-diplomats dug their own
graves. As Winston Churchill later said: "France and
Britain had to choose between war and dishonor. They
chose dishonor. They will have war. "8 How correct
were the predictions of both Churchill and Litvinov
World War II soon proved.
Hitler speedily swallowed up the Sudetenland, but
had further plans in mind for the Czechoslovaks. On
March 15, 1939, the German army swept into Prague and
took over the rest of Czechoslovakia, which the Nazis
then incorporated into their Greater Germany. Prime
Minister Chamberlain adopted an attitude of wounded
surprise. On March 18 the Soviet Government again pro-
posed a conference of European states to institute meas-
ures for resisting aggression. At this very late date in
history the British Government rejected the Soviet pro-
posal as "premature. " With its approval the League of
Nations Secretariat suppressed an appeal to the League,
293
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET CIVILIZATIOH
so that nobody would be embarrassed by the question
arising there.
On March 10, 1939, Joseph Stalin, as General Secre-
tary of the Soviet Communist Party, delivered an address
carefully reviewing the international situation. He sum-
med up Soviet foreign policy under four main points:
"First, we stand for peace and the strengthening of busi-
ness-like relations with all countries. This is our position
and we will adhere to it as long as these countries main-
tain identical relations with the Soviet Union, as long
as they make no attempt to trespass on the interests of
our country. Second, we stand for peaceful, close and
friendly relations with all the neighboring countries
which have common frontiers with the U. S. S. R. That
is our position; and we shall adhere to it as long as these
countries maintain like relations with the Soviet Union,
and as long as they make no attempt to trespass, directly
or indirectly, on the integrity and inviolability of the
frontiers of the Soviet state. Third, we stand for the sup-
port of nations which have fallen prey to aggression and
are fighting for the independence of their country.
Fourth, we are not afraid of the threats of aggressors and
we are ready to retaliate with two blows for one against
instigators of war who attempt to violate the Soviet bor-
ders. "9
In spite of the many rebuffs it had received, the
Soviet Union was still desirous of working out with the
Western democracies common measures for collective
security and defense. But the Soviets were becoming
restive. In the same speech from which I have just
quoted, Mr. Stalin suggested that the dangerous game
of the appeasers "may end in serious failure for them-
selves. " And he asserted that the U. S. S. R. did not intend
294
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET FOREICH POLICY
"to pull chestnuts out of the fire" for anyone. However,
on April 16, 1939, shortly after the wanton Italian seizure
of Albania on Easter week-end, the Soviet Government
tried again. In the words of Mr. Churchill in his book,
The Gathering Storm, the Soviets "made a formal offer,
the text of which was not published, for the creation of
a united front of mutual assistance between Great Britain,
France and the U. S. S. R. The three Powers, with Poland
added if possible, were furthermore to guarantee those
states in Central and Eastern Europe which lay under
the menace of German aggression. . . .
"The alliance of Britain, France and Russia would
have struck deep alarm into the heart of Germany in
1939, and no one can prove that war might not even then
have been averted. . . . Hitler could afford neither to
embark upon the war on two fronts, which he himself
had so deeply condemned, nor to sustain a check. It was
a pity not to have placed him in this awkward position,
which might well have cost him his life. . . . If Mr. Cham-
berlain on receipt of the Russian offer had replied, 'Yes.
Let us three band together and break Hitler's neck,' or
words to that effect, Parliament would have approved.
Stalin would have understood, and history might have
taken a different course. At least it could not have taken
a worse. . . . Instead there was a long silence while half-
measures and judicious compromises were being pre-
pared. "10
On May 3 Maxim Litvinov resigned as Soviet Foreign
Secretary and the more intransigent V. M. Molotov took
his place. This was clearly a sign that Soviet Russia was
becoming doubtful whether it could rely on the collect-
ive security policy of which Litvinov had been the prime
architect. At the end of May Mr. Molotov repeated
295
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET CIVILIZATION
Stalin's warning that the U. S. S. R. was tired of appease-
ment. Prime Minister Chamberlain, it is true, had en-
tered into active negotiations with the Soviet Union;
but to quote Mr. Churchill again, they "proceeded lan-
guidly. " In June Chamberlain sent a minor official, Mr.
William Strang, to Moscow to carry on talks; and two
months later, on August 11, an Anglo-French military
mission arrived in the U. S. S. R. after a leisurely trip by
boat. Mr. Chamberlain appeared to think there was no
hurry. The hopeful conversations with the Russians
undertaken by this mission finally broke down when the
British and French representatives refused to agree that
the Soviet army would have the right to march into
Poland and the Baltic States to meet a German attack
on those countries or to prevent a Nazi fifth column from
taking control.
The Western negotiators said that since Poland and
the Baltic nations had asserted they would refuse to
allow Soviet troops in under any conditions, it would
not be honorable to bring pressure on these governments
to change their minds. Yet only about a year before the
Anglo-French partnership had considered it perfectly
honorable to submit to Nazi blackmail and to gang up
with Hitler in insisting that Czechoslovakia hand over
a large slice of its territory to Germany. Furthermore,
the League of Nations Covenant itself, in Article XVI,
lent support to the Soviet demand by stating: "The
Members of the League . . . agree that they will take the
necessary steps to afford passage through their territory
to the forces of any of the Members of the League which
are cooperating to protect the covenants of the League. "
I for one have never been convinced that the emis-
saries of Chamberlain and Daladier -- two Prime Minis-
296
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET FOREIGH POLICY
ters who had repeatedly betrayed the principles of collect-
ive security -- really intended serious business. Light is
thrown upon their attitude by a statement made about
the same time by Sir Nevile Henderson, British Ambas-
sador to Germany and a personal friend of General Her-
mann Goering. In his own book, Failure of a Mission,
Sir Nevile writes that he told Adolf Hitler in August,
1939, that "if an agreement had to be made with Moscow,
for whom communism was now merely the cloak for
intense nationalism and whose ulterior motives seemed
to me highly suspicious, I had rather Germany made it
than ourselves. "11
Certainly Nevile Henderson got his wish. For the
Soviet Government, believing that the Anglo-French
terms for a mutual security pact would gravely endanger
Soviet defenses in case of a Nazi attack, felt compelled
to accept the other alternative: a treaty of non-aggression
with Germany. This was signed on August 23, 1939. The
pact was not an alliance any more than was the non-
aggression agreement with Japan concluded in April of
1941. The Soviet-German treaty gave the U. S. S. R. insur-
ance against having to withstand, under the most serious
military and diplomatic handicaps, a Nazi assault in
1939 and a valuable breathing spell to strengthen
itself for the later invasion. The Soviet-Japanese treaty
protected the rear of the U. S. S. R. during Hitler's mur-
derous attack. Both pacts, even though made with die-
hard Soviet enemies, seemed justified as hard-boiled de-
fensive strategy in the midst of a most threatening inter-
national situation and in view of the terrific struggle the
Soviet Union was facing.
It is widely held that the Soviet-German Non-Aggres-
sion Pact gave Hitler the needed encouragement to
297
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET CIVILIZATIOH
launch his assault on Poland; and that therefore the
Soviets were morally culpable for that crime and the
outbreak of World War II. The actual fact is, however,
that months before the pact was concluded the Nazi dic-
tator had made his decision to march against Poland in
the fall of 1939. Mr. F. H. Hinsley, a Fellow of St. John's
College, Cambridge University, proves this up to the hilt
in his book, Hitler's Strategy, based to a large extent on
documents captured from the German Government.
The author shows that early in April, 1939, Hitler issued
two directives "ordering preparations so to begin that
the attack on Poland could take place at any time after
1 September. "12 And in a secret speech to his Comman-
ders-in-Chief on May 23 he announced his decision to
invade Poland "at the first suitable opportunity. " All
this was before negotiations with Soviet Russia had begun
in earnest.
Regarding Hitler's remarks on May 23, 1939, Mr.
Hinsley writes: "Far more important than the Russian
attitude as a factor in his determination to attack Poland
without delay was the problem of relative power between
Germany and the West. . . . With every month, he was
convinced, Germany's armaments advantage relative to
Poland and the Western Powers would now decline. "13
In another speech, on August 22, to his Commanders-
in-Chief, telling them about the coming treaty with the
U. S. S. R. , Hitler said: "Our economic situation is such
that we cannot hold out more than a few years. . . . We
have no other choice; we must act. . . . Therefore con-
flict is better now. . . . The initiative cannot be allowed
to pass to others. . . . We must accept the risk with reck-
less resolution. . . . We are facing the alternative of strik-
ing now or being destroyed with certainty sooner or
298
? ?
and sheer self-interest, as well as special concern for the
welfare of workers and peasants everywhere, cause the
Soviet Union steadfastly to oppose international war.
True enough, the Soviet Communists are eager to see
Communist or socialist regimes established throughout
the earth. But Marxist theory predicts the eventual col-
lapse of capitalism everywhere from within and disap-
proves the idea of Communist countries seeking to extend
their system by conquest to capitalist countries. *
Although Soviet Russia considers wars of national
liberation such as the American Revolution justified,
it holds that the two world wars which have plagued
humanity in the twentieth century originated in a drive
against the freedom of peoples and were counter-revolu-
tionary in the sense of holding back peaceful and demo-
cratic progress. In the Second World War the fascists,
according to Soviet opinion, represented the most reac-
tionary elements in modern society. They resorted' to
domestic violence and terror, and then to external vio-
lence and terror, in a desperate, last-ditch effort to pre-
vent mankind from naturally evolving toward a more
cooperative economic system. And in their attempt to
turn back the clock of history, they aimed to conquer,
plunder and dominate the entire globe.
The Soviet Government has all along recognized
that the establishment of socialism throughout the enorm-
ous empire of the Tsars resulted in many difficult prob-
lems in world affairs and in a qualitatively new situation.
But except for a brief period following the 1917 Revolu-
? Cf. pp. 330-331.
283
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET CIVILIZATION
tion, it has insisted on the desirability and possibility of
peaceful co-existence between the socialist and capitalist
sectors of the world. It has argued that in spite of the
deep-reaching differences between the capitalist and
socialist nations in their economic and political systems,
they could cooperate to their respective advantage on
certain broad international ends. As Maxim Litvinov
once expressed it, the relative merits of capitalism and
socialism are not going to be decided by various kinds
of non-cooperation, mutual annoyance and pinpricks in
the international sphere, but by the ultimate strength,
efficiency and living standards of the two systems.
Premier Stalin has again and again reaffirmed the
possibility of peaceful co-existence between the capitalist
and socialist worlds. In 1927 he stated at the Fifteenth
Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, "The foun-
dation of our relations with capitalist countries lies in
allowing for the existence of two opposing systems. Ex-
perience has borne that out completely. " In 1936 he told
Mr. Roy Howard, head of the Scripps-Howard newspaper
chain, substantially the same thing. In 1946, when Elliott
Roosevelt asked Stalin if American democracy and Soviet
communism could live in peace side by side and without
interfering in each other's internal affairs, he replied:
"Yes, of course. This is not only possible. It is wise and
entirely within the bounds of realization. In the most
strenuous times during the war the differences in govern-
ment did not prevent our two nations from joining to-
gether and vanquishing our foes. Even more so is it
possible to continue this relationship in time of peace. "1
During the Soviet election campaign of March, 1950,
several of Stalin's most prominent colleagues emphasized
the same theme. V. M. Molotov, a Deputy Premier of the
284
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET FOREIGN. POLICY
Soviet Union and a possible successor to Stalin as Premier,
said: "We whole-heartedly support the Leninist-Stalinist
principles of the peaceful co-existence of the two systems
and of their peaceful economic competition. "2 Marshal
Klimenti E. Voroshilov, another Deputy Premier, as-
serted: "The Lenin and Stalin concept of the possibility
of the prolonged co-existence of the two systems -- social-
ist and capitalist -- constitutes the consistent expression
of the aspiration of the Soviet people to ensure peace,
security and the steady material and cultural progress of
mankind. "3
It is a fact that in the early years of the U. S. S. R.
Soviet theoreticians occasionally uttered dire warnings
about the "inevitability" of war as long as capitalism
existed. This loose talk, however, soon gave way to the
theory of the possible peaceful co-existence of the two
systems and to the more moderate view that danger of
war would remain inevitable as long as powerful sectors
of the capitalist economy continued in being. Since
World War II American writers and speakers, in partic-
ular, have stressed a few outdated Soviet quotations about
the inevitability of an armed clash between the capitalist
and socialist countries and have neglected the theory of
co-existence. Instead of thanking heaven that the Soviets
neither favor war nor believe it must come, these Ameri-
cans have gone out of their way to try to prove the oppo-
site; and thereby to condemn mankind to the horrors of
a Third World War. But we may be sure that neither
the American people nor any other are willing to accept
this mad doctrine of death by quotation.
The second point in Soviet foreign policy is that the
U. S. S. R. supports firmly the principle of collective secur-
ity as a foundation for international peace. It backed
285
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET CIVILIZATION
collective security unequivocally during the critical pre-
war period of fascist aggression from 1935 to 1939. It
stood ready and willing to participate in League of Na-
tions sanctions when fascist force on the part of Germany,
Italy or Japan was loosed against Ethiopia (1935), Spain
(1936), China (1937), Austria (1938) and Czechoslo-
vakia (September, 1938, and March, 1939). The Soviet
Government also favored League measures against Hitler
when he violated the Treaty of Versailles by going ahead
with rearmament in 1935, and with the remilitarization
of the Rhineland in 1936.
Not only was Soviet Russia foremost in exposing and
opposing these eight separate acts of aggression or treaty
violations; it also was the one major Power which sent
substantial aid to the invaded Spanish and Chinese Re-
publics, in conformance with its pledge under Article
XVI of the League to render assistance to countries under
attack by aggressors. Britain and France, on the other
hand, especially in reference to the Ethiopians and Span-
ish Loyalists, entered into official or unofficial agreements
which, with a touching impartiality, barred the sale of
military supplies to both the well-armed aggressor and the
poorly armed victim.
Time and again during the years preceding World
War II, Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov rose at
the meetings of the League of Nations, which the U. S. S. R.
had joined in 1934, and called for action against the
fascist and Nazi aggressors. On each and every occasion
Soviet Russia was unable to obtain sufficient response
from the Western democracies to make possible collect-
ive measures of real efficacy. The democratic Powers,
with the states that depended primarily on their leader-
ship, signally failed to implement their own formulation
286
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET FOREIGN. POLICY
of collective security as written into the Covenant of the
League of Nations. Soviet Russia, however, fought ener-
getically during this period on behalf of the League's
principles and thus became the outstanding champion of
those new methods of world cooperation which many
years earlier President Taft, President Wilson and other
American leaders had been instrumental in bringing to
the fore and which later the United States repudiated.
Specifically the Soviet Government, through Mr. Lit-
vinov, repeatedly expressed itself in favor of the funda-
mental Articles X and XVI of the League Covenant,
whereas Great Britain and France repeatedly demon-
strated their reluctance to put these Articles into effect.
Article X read: "The Members of the League under-
take to respect and preserve as against external aggression
the territorial integrity and existing political independ-
ence of all Members of the League. In case of any such
aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such ag-
gression, the Council shall advise upon the means by
which this obligation shall be fulfilled. "
Article XVI read in part: "Should any Member of
the League resort to war in disregard of its covenants
under Articles XII, XIII or XV it shall ipso facto be
deemed to have committed an act of war against all other
Members of the League, which hereby undertake to sub-
ject it to the severance of all trade or financial relations.
. . . It shall be the duty of the Council in such case to
recommend to the several Governments concerned what
effective military, naval or air forces Members of the
League shall severally contribute to the armed forces to
be used to protect the covenants of the League. "
When Mussolini brutally invaded Ethiopia in 1935
the Soviet Union advocated that the League act in ac-
287
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET CIVILIZATION
cordance with Articles X and XVI. In a speech at the
League Plenum on July 1, 1936, Foreign Minister Lit-
vinov expressed his regret that the members of the League
had not taken firmer action in regard to Italy's aggression.
After reaffirming Soviet support for Article X, he went
on to say: "I maintain that Article XVI has provided
the League of Nations with such a powerful weapon that
any aggression could be broken if it were brought into
full play. Furthermore, the very belief that it may be
brought into play may discourage the aggressor from put-
ting his criminal plans into effect.
"Least of all does the sad experience of the Italo-
Abyssinian war contradict this statement. In the present
case either because this was the first experiment in
applying collective measures, or because some people
thought this case had specific features, or because it co-
incided with the preparation for a more serious aggres-
sion elsewhere, to which Europe had to pay special at-
tention, or because of other reasons, the fact remains
that not only was the formidable machinery of Article
XVI not brought into play, but the tendency to keep to
minimum measures was displayed from the outset. Even
the economic sanctions were limited in scope and action.
And even in this limited scope the sanctions were not ap-
plied by all the Members of the League. . . .
"If I say all this in the interests of strengthening
peace, I cannot do otherwise than mention the measure
which the Soviet Union has always considered the maxi-
mum guarantee of peace -- I mean complete disarma-
ment. . . . But while this radical measure is in abeyance,
all we can do is to strengthen the League of Nations as
an instrument of peace. To strengthen the League is to
abide by the principle of collective security, which is by
288
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET FOREIGH POLICY
no means a product of idealism, but is a practical meas-
ure towards the security of all peoples, to abide by the
principle that peace is indivisible! We must recognize
that at the present time there is not one state, large or
small, that is not open to aggression, and that even if
the next war spares one state or another she must, sooner
or later, attract the longing eyes of the victorious ag-
gressor. "4
Because of faint-hearted support on the part of Bri-
tain and France, and because of America's complete
refusal to cooperate, even the partial economic sanctions
voted against Italy by the vacillating League soon faded
away. There were four main reasons in my opinion why
the British and French Governments did not wish to
enforce against Mussolini either economic or military
sanctions. In the first place, preferring fascism to social-
ism, they feared that far-reaching pressures against Italy
would topple the fascist regime and that genuine social-
ism would take its place. In the second place, they did
not want their own nationals to lose, even temporarily,
the economic advantages of trade with Italy.
In the third place, they were afraid that a defeat of
the Italian army by the forces of Emperor Haile Selassie
would give too much encouragement to the Negro popu-
lations of Africa against the imperialistic encroachments
of the white man. Even as intelligent a statesman as Jan
C. Smuts, several times Prime Minister of the Republic
of South Africa, thought that an Ethiopian victory against
a white nation would be a very dangerous thing. In the
fourth place, the British and French were already put-
ting into effect their considered policy of appeasing the
fascist Powers and letting them conquer and annex for-
eign lands on the supposition that they would eventually
289
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET CIVILIZATION
attack the Soviet Union and not the Western democracies.
The general appeasement policy, fear of undermining
the fascist dictatorships and plain reluctance to risk war
led England and France to make only a pretense of op-
posing Italian and Nazi intervention in Spain on behalf
of General Franco's rebellion against the democratically
elected Loyalist Government. Mussolini actually sent
an army of more than 100,000 troops to Franco's aid.
And the frequently expressed horror of high British and
French officials against violent revolution quickly sub-
sided when it was the fascists who were doing the revolt-
ing. The Anglo-French "defenders" of Western democ-
racy instituted an effective boycott on the sale of military
equipment to democratic Spain; and the United States
took the same attitude. Loyalist Spain was thus denied
its ordinary rights under international law and early in
1939 finally went down to defeat.
In 1937 the Japanese army invaded China proper, as
distinct from Manchuria, which Japan had invaded and
overrun beginning with 1931. On this second occasion
of outright Japanese aggression the League of Nations,
under Anglo-French leadership, spent much time setting
up committees and sub-committees to write polite notes
to the Japanese Government asking what its intentions
were. After a considerable delay the League decided that
while there was no general obligation for its members
to impose economic sanctions against Japan, such sanc-
tions were applicable on a discretionary basis. Of course
this very discreet action did not get anywhere; and im-
perialist Japan, looked upon by Tories the world over
as the great bulwark against Bolshevism in the Far East,
pursued its bloody course unhampered. Again, the Soviet
Union took its principled position of standing "in readi-
290
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET FOREIGH POLICY
ness to rebuff the aggressor jointly with other great states,
and small states too. "5
In March, 1938, Hitler sent his mechanized armies
across the Austrian border and annexed the whole of
Austria in the long-expected Anschluss. The Soviet Gov-
ernment vigorously protested this action and reaffirmed
its obligations under the principle of collective security.
Foreign Minister Litvinov urged a special conference to
consider the necessary means for "arresting the further
development of aggression and removing the accentuated
danger of a new world shambles. "6 Prime Minister
Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain rejected this pro-
posal and nothing came of it.
In September, 1938, the Nazi dictator brought to a
head the outrageous demand "of Germany for the annexa-
tion of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. The Brit^
ish and French Governments crumpled quickly under
Hitler's threats of launching a general war; and on Sep-
tember 15 Chamberlain made his first flight to Munich
to meet the Nazi Chancellor. While Anglo-French dip-
lomacy was busy selling Czechoslovakia down the river,
Mr. Litvinov, on September 21, made one of his greatest
speeches before the League of Nations Assembly at
Geneva.
The Soviet Foreign Minister reminded his League
colleagues that the U. S. S. R. had advocated strong meas-
ures of collective security against the aggressor at the
time of the attacks on Ethiopia, Spain and Austria. As
to Czechoslovakia and the Soviet treaty of mutual assis-
tance with that country, Mr. Litvinov stated: "We
intend to fulfill our obligations under the pact, and
together with France, to afford assistance to Czechoslo-
vakia by the ways open to us. Our War Department is
291
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET CIVILIZATIOH
ready immediately to participate in a conference with
representatives of the French and Czechoslovak War
Departments, in order to discuss the measures appropri-
ate to the moment. Independently of this we considered
that the question be raised at the League of Nations. . . .
[and that there be an] immediate consultation between
the Great Powers of Europe and other interested states,
in order if possible to decide on the terms of a collective
demarche.
"Unfortunately, other steps were taken, which would
have led, and which could not but lead, to such a capitula-
tion as is bound sooner or later to have quite incalcula-
ble and disastrous consequences. To avoid a problematic
war today and receive in return a certain and large-scale
war tomorrow -- moreover at the price of assuaging the
appetites of insatiable aggressors and of the destruction
or mutilation of sovereign states -- is not to act in the
spirit of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
To
grant bonuses for sabre-rattling and recourse to arms for
the solution of international problems -- in other words,
to reward and encourage aggressive super-imperialism --
is not to act in the spirit of the Briand-Kellogg Pact. The
Soviet Government takes pride in the fact that it has no
part in such a policy. "7
Indeed, as the negotiations went on between Hitler,
Mussolini, Chamberlain and Daladier (Premier of
France), the Soviet Government was not even consulted
by the British and French Governments. Those two Gov-
ernments brusquely turned down the idea of any con-
ference on behalf of collective security and instead came
to an agreement, behind closed doors, with the Axis dic-
tators for the partition of Czechoslovakia. On the even-
292
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET FOREIGN. POLICY
ing of September 29, following Chamberlain's second trip
to Munich, the deal was concluded and announced to
the Czechoslovak Government, which was required to
hand over the Sudeten territory peacefully to the Nazis.
The next day this Government acquiesced, although
adding that it "protests the decision of the Four Great
Powers, which was entirely one-sided and taken without
Czechoslovakia's participation. "
Through the Munich settlement the British Tories,
with the French men-like-mice following their lead,
aimed to isolate the Soviet Union diplomatically, to avoid
a military clash with Hitler, to strengthen European fas-
cism as the best insurance against communism and to
turn the Nazi war machine east against the Russians.
Instead the Anglo-French super-diplomats dug their own
graves. As Winston Churchill later said: "France and
Britain had to choose between war and dishonor. They
chose dishonor. They will have war. "8 How correct
were the predictions of both Churchill and Litvinov
World War II soon proved.
Hitler speedily swallowed up the Sudetenland, but
had further plans in mind for the Czechoslovaks. On
March 15, 1939, the German army swept into Prague and
took over the rest of Czechoslovakia, which the Nazis
then incorporated into their Greater Germany. Prime
Minister Chamberlain adopted an attitude of wounded
surprise. On March 18 the Soviet Government again pro-
posed a conference of European states to institute meas-
ures for resisting aggression. At this very late date in
history the British Government rejected the Soviet pro-
posal as "premature. " With its approval the League of
Nations Secretariat suppressed an appeal to the League,
293
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET CIVILIZATIOH
so that nobody would be embarrassed by the question
arising there.
On March 10, 1939, Joseph Stalin, as General Secre-
tary of the Soviet Communist Party, delivered an address
carefully reviewing the international situation. He sum-
med up Soviet foreign policy under four main points:
"First, we stand for peace and the strengthening of busi-
ness-like relations with all countries. This is our position
and we will adhere to it as long as these countries main-
tain identical relations with the Soviet Union, as long
as they make no attempt to trespass on the interests of
our country. Second, we stand for peaceful, close and
friendly relations with all the neighboring countries
which have common frontiers with the U. S. S. R. That
is our position; and we shall adhere to it as long as these
countries maintain like relations with the Soviet Union,
and as long as they make no attempt to trespass, directly
or indirectly, on the integrity and inviolability of the
frontiers of the Soviet state. Third, we stand for the sup-
port of nations which have fallen prey to aggression and
are fighting for the independence of their country.
Fourth, we are not afraid of the threats of aggressors and
we are ready to retaliate with two blows for one against
instigators of war who attempt to violate the Soviet bor-
ders. "9
In spite of the many rebuffs it had received, the
Soviet Union was still desirous of working out with the
Western democracies common measures for collective
security and defense. But the Soviets were becoming
restive. In the same speech from which I have just
quoted, Mr. Stalin suggested that the dangerous game
of the appeasers "may end in serious failure for them-
selves. " And he asserted that the U. S. S. R. did not intend
294
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET FOREICH POLICY
"to pull chestnuts out of the fire" for anyone. However,
on April 16, 1939, shortly after the wanton Italian seizure
of Albania on Easter week-end, the Soviet Government
tried again. In the words of Mr. Churchill in his book,
The Gathering Storm, the Soviets "made a formal offer,
the text of which was not published, for the creation of
a united front of mutual assistance between Great Britain,
France and the U. S. S. R. The three Powers, with Poland
added if possible, were furthermore to guarantee those
states in Central and Eastern Europe which lay under
the menace of German aggression. . . .
"The alliance of Britain, France and Russia would
have struck deep alarm into the heart of Germany in
1939, and no one can prove that war might not even then
have been averted. . . . Hitler could afford neither to
embark upon the war on two fronts, which he himself
had so deeply condemned, nor to sustain a check. It was
a pity not to have placed him in this awkward position,
which might well have cost him his life. . . . If Mr. Cham-
berlain on receipt of the Russian offer had replied, 'Yes.
Let us three band together and break Hitler's neck,' or
words to that effect, Parliament would have approved.
Stalin would have understood, and history might have
taken a different course. At least it could not have taken
a worse. . . . Instead there was a long silence while half-
measures and judicious compromises were being pre-
pared. "10
On May 3 Maxim Litvinov resigned as Soviet Foreign
Secretary and the more intransigent V. M. Molotov took
his place. This was clearly a sign that Soviet Russia was
becoming doubtful whether it could rely on the collect-
ive security policy of which Litvinov had been the prime
architect. At the end of May Mr. Molotov repeated
295
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET CIVILIZATION
Stalin's warning that the U. S. S. R. was tired of appease-
ment. Prime Minister Chamberlain, it is true, had en-
tered into active negotiations with the Soviet Union;
but to quote Mr. Churchill again, they "proceeded lan-
guidly. " In June Chamberlain sent a minor official, Mr.
William Strang, to Moscow to carry on talks; and two
months later, on August 11, an Anglo-French military
mission arrived in the U. S. S. R. after a leisurely trip by
boat. Mr. Chamberlain appeared to think there was no
hurry. The hopeful conversations with the Russians
undertaken by this mission finally broke down when the
British and French representatives refused to agree that
the Soviet army would have the right to march into
Poland and the Baltic States to meet a German attack
on those countries or to prevent a Nazi fifth column from
taking control.
The Western negotiators said that since Poland and
the Baltic nations had asserted they would refuse to
allow Soviet troops in under any conditions, it would
not be honorable to bring pressure on these governments
to change their minds. Yet only about a year before the
Anglo-French partnership had considered it perfectly
honorable to submit to Nazi blackmail and to gang up
with Hitler in insisting that Czechoslovakia hand over
a large slice of its territory to Germany. Furthermore,
the League of Nations Covenant itself, in Article XVI,
lent support to the Soviet demand by stating: "The
Members of the League . . . agree that they will take the
necessary steps to afford passage through their territory
to the forces of any of the Members of the League which
are cooperating to protect the covenants of the League. "
I for one have never been convinced that the emis-
saries of Chamberlain and Daladier -- two Prime Minis-
296
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET FOREIGH POLICY
ters who had repeatedly betrayed the principles of collect-
ive security -- really intended serious business. Light is
thrown upon their attitude by a statement made about
the same time by Sir Nevile Henderson, British Ambas-
sador to Germany and a personal friend of General Her-
mann Goering. In his own book, Failure of a Mission,
Sir Nevile writes that he told Adolf Hitler in August,
1939, that "if an agreement had to be made with Moscow,
for whom communism was now merely the cloak for
intense nationalism and whose ulterior motives seemed
to me highly suspicious, I had rather Germany made it
than ourselves. "11
Certainly Nevile Henderson got his wish. For the
Soviet Government, believing that the Anglo-French
terms for a mutual security pact would gravely endanger
Soviet defenses in case of a Nazi attack, felt compelled
to accept the other alternative: a treaty of non-aggression
with Germany. This was signed on August 23, 1939. The
pact was not an alliance any more than was the non-
aggression agreement with Japan concluded in April of
1941. The Soviet-German treaty gave the U. S. S. R. insur-
ance against having to withstand, under the most serious
military and diplomatic handicaps, a Nazi assault in
1939 and a valuable breathing spell to strengthen
itself for the later invasion. The Soviet-Japanese treaty
protected the rear of the U. S. S. R. during Hitler's mur-
derous attack. Both pacts, even though made with die-
hard Soviet enemies, seemed justified as hard-boiled de-
fensive strategy in the midst of a most threatening inter-
national situation and in view of the terrific struggle the
Soviet Union was facing.
It is widely held that the Soviet-German Non-Aggres-
sion Pact gave Hitler the needed encouragement to
297
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-06-10 17:30 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015020686591 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? SOVIET CIVILIZATIOH
launch his assault on Poland; and that therefore the
Soviets were morally culpable for that crime and the
outbreak of World War II. The actual fact is, however,
that months before the pact was concluded the Nazi dic-
tator had made his decision to march against Poland in
the fall of 1939. Mr. F. H. Hinsley, a Fellow of St. John's
College, Cambridge University, proves this up to the hilt
in his book, Hitler's Strategy, based to a large extent on
documents captured from the German Government.
The author shows that early in April, 1939, Hitler issued
two directives "ordering preparations so to begin that
the attack on Poland could take place at any time after
1 September. "12 And in a secret speech to his Comman-
ders-in-Chief on May 23 he announced his decision to
invade Poland "at the first suitable opportunity. " All
this was before negotiations with Soviet Russia had begun
in earnest.
Regarding Hitler's remarks on May 23, 1939, Mr.
Hinsley writes: "Far more important than the Russian
attitude as a factor in his determination to attack Poland
without delay was the problem of relative power between
Germany and the West. . . . With every month, he was
convinced, Germany's armaments advantage relative to
Poland and the Western Powers would now decline. "13
In another speech, on August 22, to his Commanders-
in-Chief, telling them about the coming treaty with the
U. S. S. R. , Hitler said: "Our economic situation is such
that we cannot hold out more than a few years. . . . We
have no other choice; we must act. . . . Therefore con-
flict is better now. . . . The initiative cannot be allowed
to pass to others. . . . We must accept the risk with reck-
less resolution. . . . We are facing the alternative of strik-
ing now or being destroyed with certainty sooner or
298
? ?
