The
friendly
associa-
tion of the United States and Russia during this period
was due in the first instance to their geographical posi-
tions in the world.
tion of the United States and Russia during this period
was due in the first instance to their geographical posi-
tions in the world.
Soviet Union - 1952 - Soviet Civilization
And the appreciation of Nature
is transformed into a study of military strategy in the
open country. Since fascism is anti-democratic in its very
essence, there is no room where it rules for such a thing
as cultural democracy. The people are viewed as innately
inferior and incapable of developing the mental capacity
or aesthetic sensitivity to comprehend the higher intel-
lectual and artistic pursuits.
Hand in hand with the tremendous material progress
of the Soviets has gone a cultural expansion of equally
great proportions. The Communist regime has brought
about a true cultural revolution by making art and
literature, the drama and the opera, music and the ballet
a shared asset and enjoyment for all of the people. The
cultural awakening has extended to tens of millions of
formerly ignorant and primitive peasants as well as
to the once backward minority peoples. The total num-
ber of students in a vastly expanded system of higher
educational institutions was over 1,000,000 in 1951, more
than nine times the figure of Tsarist days.
A fundamental educational aim is to teach the popu-
lation the facts and methods of modern experimental
science. And Soviet science in general has made mighty
strides since 1917. It is, moreover, science geared to the
service of the people; it has no prior obligation, as under
fascism, to the enterprise of aggressive war and of profits
240
? ? 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 SOCIALISM AN? D FASCISM
for the few. The ultimate goal is to build, on the founda-
tions of economic security and equilibrium,, a culture
of socialist Humanism unequalled in qualitative achieve-
ment and in the proportion of the people participating
as creators and sharers.
One index of the quality of a civilization has always
Deen the nature and level of its philosophic thinking.
The fascists never worked through a consistent, over-all
view of man and the universe. The Nazi philosophy, if
we can call it that, was a weird mixture of pseudo-scien-
tific mumbo-jumbo and the misleading, compensatory
myths of supernaturalism. Nazis who turned against
Christianity substituted for it ancient tribal superstitions
like the worship of Wotan. And central to the Nazi way
of life was the mystic concept of pure and impure races,
of the innate inferiority or superiority of certain peoples,
of the Jews as the most degraded race on earth and the
"Aryan" Germans as the most glorious. In Italy and
Spain the fascists in general accepted the backward super-
naturalist doctrines of Catholicism and maintained the
preeminent position of the Catholic Church in religion
and education.
The Soviet Union, however, as we have clearly seen,*
teaches an advanced, rigorously thought out philosophy
of life known as Dialectical Materialism, first formulated
by Marx and Engels in the nineteenth century. Dialect-
ical Materialism, with deep roots in the earlier Material-
isms of ancient Greece, ancient Rome and Western Eu-
rope, is based primarily on modern science and the ex-
perimental method. The ponderous phrase Dialectical
Materialism really means Dynamic Materialism; it
stresses the ceaselessly active, ever-changing, onrushing
* See pp. 130-131.
241
? ? 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
quality of life and existence in contrast to more mechan-
ical and static interpretations given by certain philos-
ophies of the past. This Soviet philosophy is anti-theo-
logical and anti-religious. Hand in hand with it goes
opposition to the church and to religious teaching; and
insistence upon the separation of church and state, and
of church and education. Only an upside-down logic
could possibly equate these aspects of socialism with
fascist practices.
Closely related to our discussion of the cultural, in-
tellectual and philosophic superiority of Soviet socialism
over fascism are the respective merits of representative
fascist and Soviet leaders. Compare, for example, Adolf
Hitler, the Nazi Fuehrer, Benito Mussolini, the fascist
Duce, and Joachim von Ribbentrop, the Nazi Foreign
Minister, with Vladimir I. Lenin, first head of the Soviet
Republic, Joseph V. Stalin, Soviet Premier since 1941
and Generalissimo during the Second World War, and
Maxim Litvinov, Soviet Foreign Minister from 1930 to
1939.
In contrast to these figures, Hitler, Mussolini and von
Ribbentrop were ignoramuses and demagogues. Both
the German and Italian dictators were strutting sawdust
Caesars cowing the population under their sway by bom-
bastic oratory and fierce appeals to the violent emotions.
The mental content in their speeches and writings was
always at a minimum. Von Ribbentrop was a small-
minded peddler of hate and distrust, a smooth plotter
against peace and the freedom of peoples, who ended up
properly on the gallows as a war criminal. These three
fascist adventurers betrayed the welfare of their own
countries as well as of Europe, leading their nations into
a war of aggression which in the end resulted in disaster
242
? ? 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 SOCIALISM AND FASCISM
and degradation for both Germany and Italy.
All three of the Soviet leaders mentioned stand out
as intelligent and educated, with broad social vision and
a keen understanding of the problems of the modern
world. Lenin and Stalin were rugged men of action dur-
ing a most tempestuous period of history and displayed
iron ruthlessness in putting across the Russian Revolu-
tion and in building socialism. Yet throughout their
careers they showed genuine statesmanship and an un-
ceasing concern for the welfare of the people. Both of
them carried on intellectual work of an impressive char-
acter and wrote books of real substance in philosophy
and other fields. Their speeches were usually quite calm
and without rhetoric, giving in plainest terms carefully
reasoned analyses.
After meeting Stalin, Wendell Willkie reported:
"On the personal side Stalin is a simple man, with no
affectations or poses. He does not seek to impress by any
artificial mannerisms. His sense of humor is a robust
one and he laughs readily at unsubtle jokes and re-
partee. "3 Certainly we must rank Stalin as a great
world leader with Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston
Churchill, while decrying the unending adulation of
the Soviet Premier within the U. S. S. R.
Maxim Litvinov, a charming and cultured person,
whom I talked with on several occasions when he was
Soviet Ambassador to the United States, made an out-
standing record in the sphere of international relations.
In the pre-19 39 years of fascist aggression, he became
mankind's most eloquent spokesman on behalf of peace
through collective security and earned the respect of the
Western democracies. Litvinov stands out as one of the
most impressive international statesmen and diplomats
243
? ? 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
during the era between the First and Second World Wars.
His death late in 1951 was a loss to all peace-loving
peoples.
So far as the personal lives of fascist and Soviet leaders
are concerned, I think that a brief passage from Ralph
Parker's Moscow Correspondent sums up the matter
rather well: "During the whole of the seven years I have
spent in Russia, I have never heard it suggested that
Party leaders abuse their power to provide themselves
with extravagant comforts. Not a breath of scandal is
breathed about the private lives of the rulers of Russia.
How different was the case in Nazi Germany, where, in
a single-party system, the rulers led lives of wild extrava-
gance and pomp, outraging the public with their ex-
penditures on mansions and mistresses! "4
Finally, Soviet socialism stands firmly for interna-
tional peace and cooperation among the peoples of the
earth in utter contrast to fascism's drive toward armed
aggression and the enslavement of peoples. Obviously it
was fascism's aggressive character and ambition for the
military domination of the world, aided by appeasement
on the part of the Western democracies, that brought on
the Second World War. The fascists have never made
any secret of the fact that war-making, like racial op-
pression, is a basic part of their philosophy. Mussolini
stated, "War is to man what maternity is to woman.
We reject the absurdity of eternal peace, which is foreign
to our creed and temperament. " His son Vittorio called
war "the most complete and beautiful of sports. " And
Hitler asserted that "in eternal struggle humanity has
grown to greatness; in eternal peace it will go down to
destruction. "
It cannot be denied that the German, Italian and Jap-
244
? ? 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 SOCIALISM ANJD FASCISM
anese fascists carried out their philosophy of war to the
utmost of their ability. Their attacks upon Ethiopia,
Spain and China were simply previews of their world-
wide aggression in the Second World War. Hitler,
Mussolini and their satellites succeeded in transforming
the pleasant and plentiful continent of Europe into an
appalling welter of slaughter-house and cemetery, prison
and desert. On the other side of the globe, in China and
the Far East in general, the Japanese imperialists likewise
did their brutal best in depopulating the earth and
flaunting high the banner of barbarism.
On the other hand, the Soviet Republic, since its
birth in 1917, has been consistently opposed, in both
theory and practice, to international war. War is as
counter to its general self-interest as to its ethical ideals.
And it is impossible to find any statement by any re-
sponsible leader or citizen praising or glorifying war as
such. In the pre-war period of fascist aggression, the
Soviet Union loyally supported the principle, supposedly
embodied in the League of Nations, that peace, as Lit-
vinov said, is indivisible and can be preserved only
through genuine collective security, a banding together
of the peace-loving countries to stop any aggressor or
potential aggressor.
Since the victory in 1945 of the United States, Great
Britain, Soviet Russia and their allies over the Axis, the
U. S. S. R. has maintained its solid support of world peace.
While I believe that the Soviet Government has commit-
ted its share of errors in foreign policy, it has sincerely
striven to make the United Nations a functioning organ-
ization for collective security and enduring peace. All
the mountains of post-war propaganda about Soviet ag-
gression have failed to disclose a single act of military
245
? ? 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
aggression on the part of Soviet Russia since the close of
World War II. And the Soviets would be only too happy
to be relieved of the heavy burden of armaments which
the requirements of self-defense in face of a hostile world
have forced upon them throughout their existence.
There is one further point which I want to make
about the differences between Soviet socialism and fas-
cism. That concerns the reactions to these two systems
in the outside world. The indisputable fact is that in
foreign countries many socially sensitive and progressive
intellectuals, writers, artists, teachers, scientists, trade-
unionists, social workers and clergymen have been and
are sympathetic to Soviet achievements, while practically
all such persons have been and are militantly anti-fascist.
In the non-Soviet and non-fascist nations there has
scarcely been a single outstanding leader in any walk
of life, except in the most conservative business, political
and military circles, who has been favorable to fascism.
I do not believe that the sympathy of so many first-rate
minds for the Soviet regime and their opposition to fascist
rule is a mere coincidence.
Such people have realized clearly all along that, what-
ever the shortcomings of the U. S. S. R. , the charge that
Soviet socialism and fascism are substantially the same
is an outright libel on the Soviet Union. In this chapter
I have pointed out ten basic differences between the fas-
cist and Soviet systems. To employ a simile suggested by
Mr. John Strachey, Minister of War in the late British
Labor Government, the two systems are like two express
trains rushing by each other and going in totally opposite
directions. Fascism and Soviet socialism may look alike
to an unsophisticated observer, but any profound student
246
? ? 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 SOCIALISM AHD FASCISM
must reach the conclusion that this likeness is superficial
and extends only to some of their methods.
Although happily German and Italian fascism no
longer exist, Spanish fascism under Generalissimo Fran-
cisco Franco still does survive. For those who view the
world scene objectively there could hardly be a greater
contrast between two countries than between semi-feudal,
culturally backward, economically unprogressive, pover-
ty-stricken, church-ridden Spain today and Soviet Russia.
When Franco came into power fourteen years ago -- early
in 1938 -- the economy and culture of Spain resembled
in many ways those of Russia in 1917. The Spanish dic-
tator has kept things that way.
If Franco's fascism were essentially the same as social-
ism in the U. S. S. R. , it would have put through many
fundamental changes. Long ago it would have cracked
down upon the wealthy landowning classes (actually the
economic mainstay of the regime), divided up their es-
tates among the peasants, started a collective farm pro-
gram, initiated vast economic plans to industrialize the
country, socialized the main means of production, re-
formed the educational system to stress science and the
class struggle, declared for full equality between women
and men, broken the economic, educational and political
power of the dominant religious body (the Roman Cath-
olic Church) and made Materialism Spain's official phil-
osophy. But all such measures are abhorrent to Franco
and his Falangist Party. So when we translate the ab-
stractions "fascism" and "socialism" into terms of con-
crete programs, we see at once that what fascists do and
do not differs from what Communists do and do not
do as night from day.
247
? ? 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 CIVIUZATIOH
To make our contrast complete, had Spanish fascism
been truly a form of socialism or communism, the foreign
capitalist powers-that-be would have done everything pos-
sible to encompass its downfall, as they did in the case of
Soviet Russia. Yet everywhere individual capitalists and
capitalist governments have been on the whole sympa-
thetic towards the Franco regime; and the United States
has taken it to its bosom as a military ally and is helping
to bolster up its sagging economy.
Let us recall, finally, that Hitler, in order to deceive
the German people and to exploit whatever anti-capitalist
feeling existed among them, utilized the demagogic slo-
gan "National Socialism. " But the Nazis' ersatz social-
ism resembled the Soviet system about as much as the
Fuehrer's literary style resembled Shakespeare's. The
repeated assertion that Soviet socialism and totalitarian
fascism are twins in the realm of public affairs is the sort
of desperate and preposterous "big lie" to which the
Nazis and fascists themselves have been accustomed to
resort -- a slander of such absolute enormity that its very
daring and extravagance lend it weight among the un-
informed. This evil untruth, so disruptive of world peace
and understanding, does not stand up for a moment
under the clear light of reason.
248
? ? 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
? PART II
AMERICAN-SOVIET RELATIONS
? ? 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
? ? ? 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
? CHAPTER VII THE HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND
1. From the American Revolution to the Russian
For more than a hundred years, from the early part
of the nineteenth century to the early part of the twenti-
eth, American-Russian cooperation was a significant fac-
tor in the international situation.
The friendly associa-
tion of the United States and Russia during this period
was due in the first instance to their geographical posi-
tions in the world. Although the continued expansion of
the United States and the Tsarist Empire gave the two
countries seaboards on or near both the Atlantic and
Pacific Oceans, they had no basic territorial rivalries or
conflicts. Their collaboration in diplomacy was based
in the second instance on their possession of mutual an-
tagonists in the international arena. And geography
interacted with the shape of global politics so that Amer-
ica and Russia became each for the other, as Mr. DeWitt
Clinton Poole has put it, "a potential friend in the rear
of potential enemies. " It is worth remembering, too,
that the United States and Russia, whether Tsarist or
Soviet, are the only two Great Powers in history that have
never declared war on each other.
During the American Revolution Russia pursued an
armed neutrality which favored the American colonies;
but it turned a deaf ear to the appeal of the Continental
251
? ? 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
Congress for direct assistance. Following the establish-
ment of the American Republic, Catherine the Great of
Russia, hostile to any form of political democracy and
fearing the influence of democratic ideas, refused to
recognize the new Government. It was not until 1809,
thirty-three years after the Declaration of Independence,
that the Russian Government, under Tsar Alexander I,
recognized the United States.
President Thomas Jefferson carried on a warm cor-
respondence with Alexander I and said in a letter to a
friend in 1807: "I am confident that Russia (while her
present sovereign lives) is the most cordially friendly
to us of any Power on earth, will go furthest to serve us
and is most worthy of conciliation. "1 Throughout the
nineteenth century Russia acted as a counterpoise to
those European Powers hostile to the United States,
principally Great Britain and to a lesser degree France.
When America and Britain became embroiled in the
War of 1812, Alexander I volunteered to mediate. The
American State Department immediately accepted the
offer, but the British Foreign Secretary rejected it.
In 1832 America and Russia signed their first general
Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, which lasted almost
a hundred years. In 1854 the United States sought to aid
the Russians by offering to mediate the dispute between
England and Russia that led to the Crimean War. In
this conflict in which Britain, France and Turkey com-
bined to attack the Russians, American public opinion
was distinctly favorable to Russia. In 1863 during the
American Civil War Russia sent naval squadrons to
New York and San Francisco, with the effect of dis-
couraging Great Britain and France from recognizing
the Confederacy or giving it other decisive aid. This
252
? ? 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
? THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
visit by Russian warships was a great psychological stim-
ulus to the North; and the U. S. Secretary of the Navy
gave a public expression of gratitude by saying, "God
bless the Russians! "
Meanwhile, possible friction between the American
Republic and the Tsarist regime had been eliminated
by the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 by
the United States. This not only made plain that Amer-
ica would not permit intervention in Latin America on
the part of European nations, perhaps backed by Russia
and the Holy Alliance; but also was designed to put an
end to further Russian encroachments in the Pacific
region where Russian traders had come south from Alaska
and established an outpost only forty-eight miles north
of San Francisco Bay. In 1867 Russia withdrew from
North America entirely by selling Alaska to the United
States for $7,200,000 in gold. Bering Strait then became
the border between Russia and U. S. possessions. The
mainlands of Alaska and Siberia are fifty-six miles apart,
though scarcely three and a half miles of water separate
Alaskan and Russian islands in the Strait.
During the last decade of the nineteenth century
Russian imperialist ambitions in China aroused Amer-
ican resentment and contributed to Secretary Hay's pro-
nouncement of the Open Door policy in 1899. With the
outbreak of the Russo-Japenese War in 1905 both the
American Government and the American public favored
the Japanese. As the conflict progressed, however, Presi-
dent Theodore Roosevelt became concerned lest Japan
win too much in the Far East and upset there the balance
of power which he thought to America's interest. Both
belligerents accepted his mediation in the summer of
1905; and at the peace conference held at Portsmouth,
253
? ? 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 CIVILIZA7IOH
New Hampshire, the American representatives were able
to tone down considerably Japanese demands on Russia.
In the First World War the United States and Russia
became mutual friends in the rear of active enemies,
America entering the conflict in April, 1917, less than a
month after the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II on March
15. The United States had quickly recognized the Pro-
visional Government with Prince Lvov as Premier and
later Alexander Kerensky. And American public opin-
ion at large was enthusiastic about the overthrow of the
crumbling Tsarist autocracy. President Wilson himself
voiced the general sentiment in his war messsage to Con-
gress when he spoke of the "wonderful and heartening
things that have been happening within the last few
weeks in Russia. "2 The Wilson Administration promptly
dispatched two special missions to Russia: a Diplomatic
Mission, headed by the Republican elder statesman
Elihu Root; and a Railroad Mission, headed by John F.
Stevens, formerly Chief Engineer of the Panama Canal.
The American Red Cross sent a third mission, headed
first by William B. Thompson, an American copper mag-
nate and millionaire, and then by Raymond Robins, a
prominent progressive and reformer. The United States
also loaned the Provisional Government a total of $187,-
000,000 while it was in power.
But this Provisional Government was weak and vacil-
lating from the start. The military and economic situa-
tion steadily deteriorated. Kerensky became Premier in
July and tried desperately to stem the tide. He turned
out to be, however, more an orator than an effective
administrator or commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
The Bolsheviks under the leadership of Lenin grew
stronger week by week during the summer of 1917,
254
? ? 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
? THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUHD
spreading abroad everywhere the slogan, "Peace, bread
and the land. " On November 7 they forcibly took over
Petrograd (formerly St. Petersburg, now Leningrad) and
the next day established a Soviet government. The Com-
munist Revolution was an accomplished fact.
2. From November, 1917, through World War II
American Government officials, most of our represen-
tatives in Russia and public opinion in the United
States were almost totally unprepared for the Communist
Revolution. With the advent of the Soviet Government,
American-Russian relations immediately took a turn for
the worse. The American press constantly depicted
Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and the other Soviet leaders as
criminals, murderers and paid agents of the German
Government. The fact that Lenin got back to Russia
from Switzerland through Germany in a sealed train
provided by the German Government, which wished to
see Russia withdraw from the war, was widely interpreted
as proof that he was in the pay of the Kaiser. And under-
standably enough, America, Britain, France and Italy
became incensed over the attempt of the Soviets to make
a separate peace with the Germans and over the Bolshevik
propaganda for world revolution.
The two American representatives in Russia who
came to possess the clearest grasp of the situation were
Colonel W. B. Thompson and Colonel Raymond Robins
of the Red Cross Mission, which arrived in Petrograd
early in August, 1917. Thompson and Robins both sym-
pathized with the Kerensky regime and supported it and
the Left against the revolt led by the reactionary Tsarist
officer, General Kornilov, and favored by the various
Allied ambassadors. The incredible Thompson donated
255
? ? 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
$1,000,000 of his own money for pro-Kerensky and anti-
Bolshevik propaganda.
Both Thompson and Robins, however, quickly ad-
justed themselves to the realities of Soviet power. As
Robins said of the Provisional Government, "The thing
to do with a corpse is not to sit up with it but to bury it. "3
Colonels Thompson and Robins adopted a view op-
posed to that of practically every other American or
Allied representative in Soviet Russia; and sent cable
after cable to America stating that Lenin and his col-
leagues had come to stay, that they were not German
agents and that the Allies ought to cooperate with them
against the German armies. Meanwhile the Kaiser's
forces were rolling steadily onward against the crumbling
Russian defenses. And although Lenin and his associates
favored neither side in the imperialist conflict, they were
perfectly willing to utilize international capitalist contra-
dictions to promote their own cause.
Colonel Thompson realized that he would come in
for some pretty bitter criticism back home. "I guess they
would call me tainted down on Wall Street now," he
confided to a friend. "I have learned a lot over here. . . .
Why, this revolution was as necessary to the development
of Russia as the abolition of slavery to us. All they are
asking for is land, a little land. . . . Russia looks to me
now as the West used to look when I was a boy. . . . The
mines in Russia are where the mines in the Rocky
Mountains were forty years ago. I can shut my eyes and
see Russia exporting the hard metals and feeding the
whole world. And the people are crying out for just a
little land. "4
At a special meeting Thompson and Robins outlined
their ideas to the representatives of the different Allied
256
? ? 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
? THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUHD
embassies and missions: "If support is given by the Allies
to the present Bolshevik Government, it is entirely pos-
sible to use existing Russian opinion and governmental
activity to undermine the morale of the German army.
To this end a genuine friendliness on the part of the
Allied embassies to the existing or any revolutionary
government -- involving loans of money and the trans-
port of supplies for the relief of the civilian population --
is in our judgment justified by the soundest considera-
tions for the Allied cause. "6
The Allied diplomats were indignant. "Deal with the
Bolsheviki? " they cried. "Those creatures are German
agents, traitors, crooks, thieves! " Colonel Robins hit
back with a priceless bit of repartee. "Suppose they are,"
he remarked. "Some of us have dealt with American
political bosses, and if there is anyone in Smolny [tempo-
rary headquarters of the Soviet Government in Petro-
grad] more corrupt than some of our crooks, then they
are some crooked, that's all. "6 The diplomats ended the
conversation by declaring that the Soviets would last six
weeks at the most.
But Thompson and Robins were determined char-
acters. They decided together that Thompson should go
to England and the United States to present their case
first-hand to leading British and American officials. It
was a paradoxical situation, not only because W. B.
Thompson, fabulously wealthy, a conservative Repub-
lican and, from all past appearances, a typical American
capitalist, should take such an unorthodox view of Soviet
Russia; but also because among Thompson's firmest
backers on this matter in America were none other than
three partners of the banking firm of J. P. Morgan & Co.
These were Henry P. Davison, chief of the American
257
? ? 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
Red Cross, who had appointed Thompson in the first
place and maintained a sympathetic attitude toward his
opinions; Dwight W. Morrow, later American Ambas-
sador to Mexico; and my father, Thomas W. Lamont,
who had been a close friend of Thompson since they had
gone to the Phillips Exeter Academy together some
thirty years previously.
Mr. Lamont was in Europe during November and
December of 1917 as an unofficial adviser to the American
Mission, led by E. M. House, which was consulting with
the Allies on the conduct of the war. When Colonel
Thompson arrived in London on December 10, Mr.
Lamont had a long talk with him and was greatly im-
pressed by what he had to say concerning the new Russia.
Two days later Mr. Lamont cabled Mr. Davison in the
United States that he was "much depressed" over the lack
of understanding in England and France of Russian con-
ditions; that it seemed to him "of real importance to have
all Allied authorities secure benefits of Thompson's ex-
perience and viewpoint";7 and that "after his interviews
here, Thompson should immediately return to America
for personal interview with President to acquaint him
fully at first hand with this gigantic international situ-
ation, upon the possible solution of which depends the
future peace of the world. "8
Mr. Lamont proceeded to put Thompson in touch
with high British officials, such as Admiral Reginald Hall,
chief of Naval Intelligence, and John Buchan (later Lord
Tweedsmuir), head of British propaganda. Then Lamont
and Thompson went to 10 Downing Street for luncheon
with Prime Minister Lloyd George, who gave them two
full hours and reacted most favorably to Thompson's
story about Soviet Russia. According to a memorandum
258
? ? 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
? THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
drawn up by Mr. Lamont, the Prime Minister "said
more than once that he was convinced that the Allied
representatives in Petrograd had failed utterly to grasp
the significance of developments in Russia. "9
At the close of the interview he added: "I want you
to tell President Wilson of this talk with me. Tell him
that we are most sympathetic here with the idea of trying
to handle Russia with greater insight and that I will co-
operate with him to the full. I think it would be wise if
the President were to see fit to make a concrete suggestion.
. . . I will pick out the best man we have in Great Britain
and will send him to Russia to work with the best man
President Wilson will pick out in America. Together
they shall go to those people and see if they cannot help
them work out a better destiny. "10 Only a month or so
later Lloyd George fulfilled his half of the proposed
bargain by sending R. H. Bruce Lockhart on a special
mission to Petrograd with the purpose of working out a
fresh and more fruitful policy.
The day after their talk with Lloyd George, Thomp-
son and Lamont sailed for America on His Majesty's
Transport No. 8210 (the former liner Olympic). Arriv-
ing in the United States, they immediately went to Wash-
ington on the supposition that President Wilson would
surely see them. The President, however, refused to re-
ceive them. Secretary of State Lansing gave them an in-
terview, and cut it short before Thompson could really
deliver his message. Colonel Thompson tried all sorts
of indirect approaches with the aim of reaching Wilson,
but did not succeed. Together with Mr. Lamont, he
drew up a "Memorandum on the Present Situation in
Russia" and sent it to the President. Among other things
this memorandum stated: "We are forcing Russia into
259
?
is transformed into a study of military strategy in the
open country. Since fascism is anti-democratic in its very
essence, there is no room where it rules for such a thing
as cultural democracy. The people are viewed as innately
inferior and incapable of developing the mental capacity
or aesthetic sensitivity to comprehend the higher intel-
lectual and artistic pursuits.
Hand in hand with the tremendous material progress
of the Soviets has gone a cultural expansion of equally
great proportions. The Communist regime has brought
about a true cultural revolution by making art and
literature, the drama and the opera, music and the ballet
a shared asset and enjoyment for all of the people. The
cultural awakening has extended to tens of millions of
formerly ignorant and primitive peasants as well as
to the once backward minority peoples. The total num-
ber of students in a vastly expanded system of higher
educational institutions was over 1,000,000 in 1951, more
than nine times the figure of Tsarist days.
A fundamental educational aim is to teach the popu-
lation the facts and methods of modern experimental
science. And Soviet science in general has made mighty
strides since 1917. It is, moreover, science geared to the
service of the people; it has no prior obligation, as under
fascism, to the enterprise of aggressive war and of profits
240
? ? 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 SOCIALISM AN? D FASCISM
for the few. The ultimate goal is to build, on the founda-
tions of economic security and equilibrium,, a culture
of socialist Humanism unequalled in qualitative achieve-
ment and in the proportion of the people participating
as creators and sharers.
One index of the quality of a civilization has always
Deen the nature and level of its philosophic thinking.
The fascists never worked through a consistent, over-all
view of man and the universe. The Nazi philosophy, if
we can call it that, was a weird mixture of pseudo-scien-
tific mumbo-jumbo and the misleading, compensatory
myths of supernaturalism. Nazis who turned against
Christianity substituted for it ancient tribal superstitions
like the worship of Wotan. And central to the Nazi way
of life was the mystic concept of pure and impure races,
of the innate inferiority or superiority of certain peoples,
of the Jews as the most degraded race on earth and the
"Aryan" Germans as the most glorious. In Italy and
Spain the fascists in general accepted the backward super-
naturalist doctrines of Catholicism and maintained the
preeminent position of the Catholic Church in religion
and education.
The Soviet Union, however, as we have clearly seen,*
teaches an advanced, rigorously thought out philosophy
of life known as Dialectical Materialism, first formulated
by Marx and Engels in the nineteenth century. Dialect-
ical Materialism, with deep roots in the earlier Material-
isms of ancient Greece, ancient Rome and Western Eu-
rope, is based primarily on modern science and the ex-
perimental method. The ponderous phrase Dialectical
Materialism really means Dynamic Materialism; it
stresses the ceaselessly active, ever-changing, onrushing
* See pp. 130-131.
241
? ? 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
quality of life and existence in contrast to more mechan-
ical and static interpretations given by certain philos-
ophies of the past. This Soviet philosophy is anti-theo-
logical and anti-religious. Hand in hand with it goes
opposition to the church and to religious teaching; and
insistence upon the separation of church and state, and
of church and education. Only an upside-down logic
could possibly equate these aspects of socialism with
fascist practices.
Closely related to our discussion of the cultural, in-
tellectual and philosophic superiority of Soviet socialism
over fascism are the respective merits of representative
fascist and Soviet leaders. Compare, for example, Adolf
Hitler, the Nazi Fuehrer, Benito Mussolini, the fascist
Duce, and Joachim von Ribbentrop, the Nazi Foreign
Minister, with Vladimir I. Lenin, first head of the Soviet
Republic, Joseph V. Stalin, Soviet Premier since 1941
and Generalissimo during the Second World War, and
Maxim Litvinov, Soviet Foreign Minister from 1930 to
1939.
In contrast to these figures, Hitler, Mussolini and von
Ribbentrop were ignoramuses and demagogues. Both
the German and Italian dictators were strutting sawdust
Caesars cowing the population under their sway by bom-
bastic oratory and fierce appeals to the violent emotions.
The mental content in their speeches and writings was
always at a minimum. Von Ribbentrop was a small-
minded peddler of hate and distrust, a smooth plotter
against peace and the freedom of peoples, who ended up
properly on the gallows as a war criminal. These three
fascist adventurers betrayed the welfare of their own
countries as well as of Europe, leading their nations into
a war of aggression which in the end resulted in disaster
242
? ? 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 SOCIALISM AND FASCISM
and degradation for both Germany and Italy.
All three of the Soviet leaders mentioned stand out
as intelligent and educated, with broad social vision and
a keen understanding of the problems of the modern
world. Lenin and Stalin were rugged men of action dur-
ing a most tempestuous period of history and displayed
iron ruthlessness in putting across the Russian Revolu-
tion and in building socialism. Yet throughout their
careers they showed genuine statesmanship and an un-
ceasing concern for the welfare of the people. Both of
them carried on intellectual work of an impressive char-
acter and wrote books of real substance in philosophy
and other fields. Their speeches were usually quite calm
and without rhetoric, giving in plainest terms carefully
reasoned analyses.
After meeting Stalin, Wendell Willkie reported:
"On the personal side Stalin is a simple man, with no
affectations or poses. He does not seek to impress by any
artificial mannerisms. His sense of humor is a robust
one and he laughs readily at unsubtle jokes and re-
partee. "3 Certainly we must rank Stalin as a great
world leader with Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston
Churchill, while decrying the unending adulation of
the Soviet Premier within the U. S. S. R.
Maxim Litvinov, a charming and cultured person,
whom I talked with on several occasions when he was
Soviet Ambassador to the United States, made an out-
standing record in the sphere of international relations.
In the pre-19 39 years of fascist aggression, he became
mankind's most eloquent spokesman on behalf of peace
through collective security and earned the respect of the
Western democracies. Litvinov stands out as one of the
most impressive international statesmen and diplomats
243
? ? 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
during the era between the First and Second World Wars.
His death late in 1951 was a loss to all peace-loving
peoples.
So far as the personal lives of fascist and Soviet leaders
are concerned, I think that a brief passage from Ralph
Parker's Moscow Correspondent sums up the matter
rather well: "During the whole of the seven years I have
spent in Russia, I have never heard it suggested that
Party leaders abuse their power to provide themselves
with extravagant comforts. Not a breath of scandal is
breathed about the private lives of the rulers of Russia.
How different was the case in Nazi Germany, where, in
a single-party system, the rulers led lives of wild extrava-
gance and pomp, outraging the public with their ex-
penditures on mansions and mistresses! "4
Finally, Soviet socialism stands firmly for interna-
tional peace and cooperation among the peoples of the
earth in utter contrast to fascism's drive toward armed
aggression and the enslavement of peoples. Obviously it
was fascism's aggressive character and ambition for the
military domination of the world, aided by appeasement
on the part of the Western democracies, that brought on
the Second World War. The fascists have never made
any secret of the fact that war-making, like racial op-
pression, is a basic part of their philosophy. Mussolini
stated, "War is to man what maternity is to woman.
We reject the absurdity of eternal peace, which is foreign
to our creed and temperament. " His son Vittorio called
war "the most complete and beautiful of sports. " And
Hitler asserted that "in eternal struggle humanity has
grown to greatness; in eternal peace it will go down to
destruction. "
It cannot be denied that the German, Italian and Jap-
244
? ? 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 SOCIALISM ANJD FASCISM
anese fascists carried out their philosophy of war to the
utmost of their ability. Their attacks upon Ethiopia,
Spain and China were simply previews of their world-
wide aggression in the Second World War. Hitler,
Mussolini and their satellites succeeded in transforming
the pleasant and plentiful continent of Europe into an
appalling welter of slaughter-house and cemetery, prison
and desert. On the other side of the globe, in China and
the Far East in general, the Japanese imperialists likewise
did their brutal best in depopulating the earth and
flaunting high the banner of barbarism.
On the other hand, the Soviet Republic, since its
birth in 1917, has been consistently opposed, in both
theory and practice, to international war. War is as
counter to its general self-interest as to its ethical ideals.
And it is impossible to find any statement by any re-
sponsible leader or citizen praising or glorifying war as
such. In the pre-war period of fascist aggression, the
Soviet Union loyally supported the principle, supposedly
embodied in the League of Nations, that peace, as Lit-
vinov said, is indivisible and can be preserved only
through genuine collective security, a banding together
of the peace-loving countries to stop any aggressor or
potential aggressor.
Since the victory in 1945 of the United States, Great
Britain, Soviet Russia and their allies over the Axis, the
U. S. S. R. has maintained its solid support of world peace.
While I believe that the Soviet Government has commit-
ted its share of errors in foreign policy, it has sincerely
striven to make the United Nations a functioning organ-
ization for collective security and enduring peace. All
the mountains of post-war propaganda about Soviet ag-
gression have failed to disclose a single act of military
245
? ? 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
aggression on the part of Soviet Russia since the close of
World War II. And the Soviets would be only too happy
to be relieved of the heavy burden of armaments which
the requirements of self-defense in face of a hostile world
have forced upon them throughout their existence.
There is one further point which I want to make
about the differences between Soviet socialism and fas-
cism. That concerns the reactions to these two systems
in the outside world. The indisputable fact is that in
foreign countries many socially sensitive and progressive
intellectuals, writers, artists, teachers, scientists, trade-
unionists, social workers and clergymen have been and
are sympathetic to Soviet achievements, while practically
all such persons have been and are militantly anti-fascist.
In the non-Soviet and non-fascist nations there has
scarcely been a single outstanding leader in any walk
of life, except in the most conservative business, political
and military circles, who has been favorable to fascism.
I do not believe that the sympathy of so many first-rate
minds for the Soviet regime and their opposition to fascist
rule is a mere coincidence.
Such people have realized clearly all along that, what-
ever the shortcomings of the U. S. S. R. , the charge that
Soviet socialism and fascism are substantially the same
is an outright libel on the Soviet Union. In this chapter
I have pointed out ten basic differences between the fas-
cist and Soviet systems. To employ a simile suggested by
Mr. John Strachey, Minister of War in the late British
Labor Government, the two systems are like two express
trains rushing by each other and going in totally opposite
directions. Fascism and Soviet socialism may look alike
to an unsophisticated observer, but any profound student
246
? ? 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 SOCIALISM AHD FASCISM
must reach the conclusion that this likeness is superficial
and extends only to some of their methods.
Although happily German and Italian fascism no
longer exist, Spanish fascism under Generalissimo Fran-
cisco Franco still does survive. For those who view the
world scene objectively there could hardly be a greater
contrast between two countries than between semi-feudal,
culturally backward, economically unprogressive, pover-
ty-stricken, church-ridden Spain today and Soviet Russia.
When Franco came into power fourteen years ago -- early
in 1938 -- the economy and culture of Spain resembled
in many ways those of Russia in 1917. The Spanish dic-
tator has kept things that way.
If Franco's fascism were essentially the same as social-
ism in the U. S. S. R. , it would have put through many
fundamental changes. Long ago it would have cracked
down upon the wealthy landowning classes (actually the
economic mainstay of the regime), divided up their es-
tates among the peasants, started a collective farm pro-
gram, initiated vast economic plans to industrialize the
country, socialized the main means of production, re-
formed the educational system to stress science and the
class struggle, declared for full equality between women
and men, broken the economic, educational and political
power of the dominant religious body (the Roman Cath-
olic Church) and made Materialism Spain's official phil-
osophy. But all such measures are abhorrent to Franco
and his Falangist Party. So when we translate the ab-
stractions "fascism" and "socialism" into terms of con-
crete programs, we see at once that what fascists do and
do not differs from what Communists do and do not
do as night from day.
247
? ? 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 CIVIUZATIOH
To make our contrast complete, had Spanish fascism
been truly a form of socialism or communism, the foreign
capitalist powers-that-be would have done everything pos-
sible to encompass its downfall, as they did in the case of
Soviet Russia. Yet everywhere individual capitalists and
capitalist governments have been on the whole sympa-
thetic towards the Franco regime; and the United States
has taken it to its bosom as a military ally and is helping
to bolster up its sagging economy.
Let us recall, finally, that Hitler, in order to deceive
the German people and to exploit whatever anti-capitalist
feeling existed among them, utilized the demagogic slo-
gan "National Socialism. " But the Nazis' ersatz social-
ism resembled the Soviet system about as much as the
Fuehrer's literary style resembled Shakespeare's. The
repeated assertion that Soviet socialism and totalitarian
fascism are twins in the realm of public affairs is the sort
of desperate and preposterous "big lie" to which the
Nazis and fascists themselves have been accustomed to
resort -- a slander of such absolute enormity that its very
daring and extravagance lend it weight among the un-
informed. This evil untruth, so disruptive of world peace
and understanding, does not stand up for a moment
under the clear light of reason.
248
? ? 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
? PART II
AMERICAN-SOVIET RELATIONS
? ? 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
? ? ? 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
? CHAPTER VII THE HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND
1. From the American Revolution to the Russian
For more than a hundred years, from the early part
of the nineteenth century to the early part of the twenti-
eth, American-Russian cooperation was a significant fac-
tor in the international situation.
The friendly associa-
tion of the United States and Russia during this period
was due in the first instance to their geographical posi-
tions in the world. Although the continued expansion of
the United States and the Tsarist Empire gave the two
countries seaboards on or near both the Atlantic and
Pacific Oceans, they had no basic territorial rivalries or
conflicts. Their collaboration in diplomacy was based
in the second instance on their possession of mutual an-
tagonists in the international arena. And geography
interacted with the shape of global politics so that Amer-
ica and Russia became each for the other, as Mr. DeWitt
Clinton Poole has put it, "a potential friend in the rear
of potential enemies. " It is worth remembering, too,
that the United States and Russia, whether Tsarist or
Soviet, are the only two Great Powers in history that have
never declared war on each other.
During the American Revolution Russia pursued an
armed neutrality which favored the American colonies;
but it turned a deaf ear to the appeal of the Continental
251
? ? 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
Congress for direct assistance. Following the establish-
ment of the American Republic, Catherine the Great of
Russia, hostile to any form of political democracy and
fearing the influence of democratic ideas, refused to
recognize the new Government. It was not until 1809,
thirty-three years after the Declaration of Independence,
that the Russian Government, under Tsar Alexander I,
recognized the United States.
President Thomas Jefferson carried on a warm cor-
respondence with Alexander I and said in a letter to a
friend in 1807: "I am confident that Russia (while her
present sovereign lives) is the most cordially friendly
to us of any Power on earth, will go furthest to serve us
and is most worthy of conciliation. "1 Throughout the
nineteenth century Russia acted as a counterpoise to
those European Powers hostile to the United States,
principally Great Britain and to a lesser degree France.
When America and Britain became embroiled in the
War of 1812, Alexander I volunteered to mediate. The
American State Department immediately accepted the
offer, but the British Foreign Secretary rejected it.
In 1832 America and Russia signed their first general
Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, which lasted almost
a hundred years. In 1854 the United States sought to aid
the Russians by offering to mediate the dispute between
England and Russia that led to the Crimean War. In
this conflict in which Britain, France and Turkey com-
bined to attack the Russians, American public opinion
was distinctly favorable to Russia. In 1863 during the
American Civil War Russia sent naval squadrons to
New York and San Francisco, with the effect of dis-
couraging Great Britain and France from recognizing
the Confederacy or giving it other decisive aid. This
252
? ? 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
? THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
visit by Russian warships was a great psychological stim-
ulus to the North; and the U. S. Secretary of the Navy
gave a public expression of gratitude by saying, "God
bless the Russians! "
Meanwhile, possible friction between the American
Republic and the Tsarist regime had been eliminated
by the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 by
the United States. This not only made plain that Amer-
ica would not permit intervention in Latin America on
the part of European nations, perhaps backed by Russia
and the Holy Alliance; but also was designed to put an
end to further Russian encroachments in the Pacific
region where Russian traders had come south from Alaska
and established an outpost only forty-eight miles north
of San Francisco Bay. In 1867 Russia withdrew from
North America entirely by selling Alaska to the United
States for $7,200,000 in gold. Bering Strait then became
the border between Russia and U. S. possessions. The
mainlands of Alaska and Siberia are fifty-six miles apart,
though scarcely three and a half miles of water separate
Alaskan and Russian islands in the Strait.
During the last decade of the nineteenth century
Russian imperialist ambitions in China aroused Amer-
ican resentment and contributed to Secretary Hay's pro-
nouncement of the Open Door policy in 1899. With the
outbreak of the Russo-Japenese War in 1905 both the
American Government and the American public favored
the Japanese. As the conflict progressed, however, Presi-
dent Theodore Roosevelt became concerned lest Japan
win too much in the Far East and upset there the balance
of power which he thought to America's interest. Both
belligerents accepted his mediation in the summer of
1905; and at the peace conference held at Portsmouth,
253
? ? 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 CIVILIZA7IOH
New Hampshire, the American representatives were able
to tone down considerably Japanese demands on Russia.
In the First World War the United States and Russia
became mutual friends in the rear of active enemies,
America entering the conflict in April, 1917, less than a
month after the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II on March
15. The United States had quickly recognized the Pro-
visional Government with Prince Lvov as Premier and
later Alexander Kerensky. And American public opin-
ion at large was enthusiastic about the overthrow of the
crumbling Tsarist autocracy. President Wilson himself
voiced the general sentiment in his war messsage to Con-
gress when he spoke of the "wonderful and heartening
things that have been happening within the last few
weeks in Russia. "2 The Wilson Administration promptly
dispatched two special missions to Russia: a Diplomatic
Mission, headed by the Republican elder statesman
Elihu Root; and a Railroad Mission, headed by John F.
Stevens, formerly Chief Engineer of the Panama Canal.
The American Red Cross sent a third mission, headed
first by William B. Thompson, an American copper mag-
nate and millionaire, and then by Raymond Robins, a
prominent progressive and reformer. The United States
also loaned the Provisional Government a total of $187,-
000,000 while it was in power.
But this Provisional Government was weak and vacil-
lating from the start. The military and economic situa-
tion steadily deteriorated. Kerensky became Premier in
July and tried desperately to stem the tide. He turned
out to be, however, more an orator than an effective
administrator or commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
The Bolsheviks under the leadership of Lenin grew
stronger week by week during the summer of 1917,
254
? ? 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
? THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUHD
spreading abroad everywhere the slogan, "Peace, bread
and the land. " On November 7 they forcibly took over
Petrograd (formerly St. Petersburg, now Leningrad) and
the next day established a Soviet government. The Com-
munist Revolution was an accomplished fact.
2. From November, 1917, through World War II
American Government officials, most of our represen-
tatives in Russia and public opinion in the United
States were almost totally unprepared for the Communist
Revolution. With the advent of the Soviet Government,
American-Russian relations immediately took a turn for
the worse. The American press constantly depicted
Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and the other Soviet leaders as
criminals, murderers and paid agents of the German
Government. The fact that Lenin got back to Russia
from Switzerland through Germany in a sealed train
provided by the German Government, which wished to
see Russia withdraw from the war, was widely interpreted
as proof that he was in the pay of the Kaiser. And under-
standably enough, America, Britain, France and Italy
became incensed over the attempt of the Soviets to make
a separate peace with the Germans and over the Bolshevik
propaganda for world revolution.
The two American representatives in Russia who
came to possess the clearest grasp of the situation were
Colonel W. B. Thompson and Colonel Raymond Robins
of the Red Cross Mission, which arrived in Petrograd
early in August, 1917. Thompson and Robins both sym-
pathized with the Kerensky regime and supported it and
the Left against the revolt led by the reactionary Tsarist
officer, General Kornilov, and favored by the various
Allied ambassadors. The incredible Thompson donated
255
? ? 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
$1,000,000 of his own money for pro-Kerensky and anti-
Bolshevik propaganda.
Both Thompson and Robins, however, quickly ad-
justed themselves to the realities of Soviet power. As
Robins said of the Provisional Government, "The thing
to do with a corpse is not to sit up with it but to bury it. "3
Colonels Thompson and Robins adopted a view op-
posed to that of practically every other American or
Allied representative in Soviet Russia; and sent cable
after cable to America stating that Lenin and his col-
leagues had come to stay, that they were not German
agents and that the Allies ought to cooperate with them
against the German armies. Meanwhile the Kaiser's
forces were rolling steadily onward against the crumbling
Russian defenses. And although Lenin and his associates
favored neither side in the imperialist conflict, they were
perfectly willing to utilize international capitalist contra-
dictions to promote their own cause.
Colonel Thompson realized that he would come in
for some pretty bitter criticism back home. "I guess they
would call me tainted down on Wall Street now," he
confided to a friend. "I have learned a lot over here. . . .
Why, this revolution was as necessary to the development
of Russia as the abolition of slavery to us. All they are
asking for is land, a little land. . . . Russia looks to me
now as the West used to look when I was a boy. . . . The
mines in Russia are where the mines in the Rocky
Mountains were forty years ago. I can shut my eyes and
see Russia exporting the hard metals and feeding the
whole world. And the people are crying out for just a
little land. "4
At a special meeting Thompson and Robins outlined
their ideas to the representatives of the different Allied
256
? ? 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
? THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUHD
embassies and missions: "If support is given by the Allies
to the present Bolshevik Government, it is entirely pos-
sible to use existing Russian opinion and governmental
activity to undermine the morale of the German army.
To this end a genuine friendliness on the part of the
Allied embassies to the existing or any revolutionary
government -- involving loans of money and the trans-
port of supplies for the relief of the civilian population --
is in our judgment justified by the soundest considera-
tions for the Allied cause. "6
The Allied diplomats were indignant. "Deal with the
Bolsheviki? " they cried. "Those creatures are German
agents, traitors, crooks, thieves! " Colonel Robins hit
back with a priceless bit of repartee. "Suppose they are,"
he remarked. "Some of us have dealt with American
political bosses, and if there is anyone in Smolny [tempo-
rary headquarters of the Soviet Government in Petro-
grad] more corrupt than some of our crooks, then they
are some crooked, that's all. "6 The diplomats ended the
conversation by declaring that the Soviets would last six
weeks at the most.
But Thompson and Robins were determined char-
acters. They decided together that Thompson should go
to England and the United States to present their case
first-hand to leading British and American officials. It
was a paradoxical situation, not only because W. B.
Thompson, fabulously wealthy, a conservative Repub-
lican and, from all past appearances, a typical American
capitalist, should take such an unorthodox view of Soviet
Russia; but also because among Thompson's firmest
backers on this matter in America were none other than
three partners of the banking firm of J. P. Morgan & Co.
These were Henry P. Davison, chief of the American
257
? ? 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
Red Cross, who had appointed Thompson in the first
place and maintained a sympathetic attitude toward his
opinions; Dwight W. Morrow, later American Ambas-
sador to Mexico; and my father, Thomas W. Lamont,
who had been a close friend of Thompson since they had
gone to the Phillips Exeter Academy together some
thirty years previously.
Mr. Lamont was in Europe during November and
December of 1917 as an unofficial adviser to the American
Mission, led by E. M. House, which was consulting with
the Allies on the conduct of the war. When Colonel
Thompson arrived in London on December 10, Mr.
Lamont had a long talk with him and was greatly im-
pressed by what he had to say concerning the new Russia.
Two days later Mr. Lamont cabled Mr. Davison in the
United States that he was "much depressed" over the lack
of understanding in England and France of Russian con-
ditions; that it seemed to him "of real importance to have
all Allied authorities secure benefits of Thompson's ex-
perience and viewpoint";7 and that "after his interviews
here, Thompson should immediately return to America
for personal interview with President to acquaint him
fully at first hand with this gigantic international situ-
ation, upon the possible solution of which depends the
future peace of the world. "8
Mr. Lamont proceeded to put Thompson in touch
with high British officials, such as Admiral Reginald Hall,
chief of Naval Intelligence, and John Buchan (later Lord
Tweedsmuir), head of British propaganda. Then Lamont
and Thompson went to 10 Downing Street for luncheon
with Prime Minister Lloyd George, who gave them two
full hours and reacted most favorably to Thompson's
story about Soviet Russia. According to a memorandum
258
? ? 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
? THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
drawn up by Mr. Lamont, the Prime Minister "said
more than once that he was convinced that the Allied
representatives in Petrograd had failed utterly to grasp
the significance of developments in Russia. "9
At the close of the interview he added: "I want you
to tell President Wilson of this talk with me. Tell him
that we are most sympathetic here with the idea of trying
to handle Russia with greater insight and that I will co-
operate with him to the full. I think it would be wise if
the President were to see fit to make a concrete suggestion.
. . . I will pick out the best man we have in Great Britain
and will send him to Russia to work with the best man
President Wilson will pick out in America. Together
they shall go to those people and see if they cannot help
them work out a better destiny. "10 Only a month or so
later Lloyd George fulfilled his half of the proposed
bargain by sending R. H. Bruce Lockhart on a special
mission to Petrograd with the purpose of working out a
fresh and more fruitful policy.
The day after their talk with Lloyd George, Thomp-
son and Lamont sailed for America on His Majesty's
Transport No. 8210 (the former liner Olympic). Arriv-
ing in the United States, they immediately went to Wash-
ington on the supposition that President Wilson would
surely see them. The President, however, refused to re-
ceive them. Secretary of State Lansing gave them an in-
terview, and cut it short before Thompson could really
deliver his message. Colonel Thompson tried all sorts
of indirect approaches with the aim of reaching Wilson,
but did not succeed. Together with Mr. Lamont, he
drew up a "Memorandum on the Present Situation in
Russia" and sent it to the President. Among other things
this memorandum stated: "We are forcing Russia into
259
?
