Greetings Message to Moscow and more
Greetings Message to Moscow
September 8, 1947
Greetings to Moscow, the capital of our country, on its 800th anniversary.
The entire country is today celebrating this significant day. It is
celebrating it no”t formally, but with feelings of love and reverence,
because of ? the great services Moscow has rendered our country.
The services which Moscow has rendered are not only that it thrice in
the course of the history of our country liberated her from foreign
oppression – from the Mongolian yoke, from Polish-Lithuanian invasion
and from French incursion. The service Moscow rendered is primarily
that it became the basis for uniting disunited Russia into a single
state, with a single government and a single leadership. No country in
the world can count on preserving its independence, on real economic
and cultural growth, if it has not succeeded in liberating itself from
feudal disunity and strife among princes. Only a country which is
united in a single, centralized state can count on the possibility of
real cultural and economic growth, on the possibility of firmly
establishing its independence. The historic service which Moscow
rendered is that it has been and remains the basis and the initiator in
the creation of a centralized state in Russia.
But this is not the only service that Moscow has rendered our country.
After Moscow, by the will of our great Lenin, was again proclaimed the
capial of our country, it became the banner bearer of the new, Soviet
Moscow is today not only the inspirer in the building of the new,
Soviet social and economic order, which substituted the rule of Labour
for the rule of capital and rejected the exploitation of man by man.
Moscow is also the herald of the movement for the liberation of toiling
mankind from capitalist slavery.
Moscow is today not only the inspirer in the building of the new,
Soviet democracy, which rejects all, direct or indirect, inequality of
citizens, sexes, races and nations, and ensures the right to work and
the right to equal pay for equal work. Moscow is also the banner of the
struggle which all the working people in the world, all the oppressed
races and nations, are waging to liberate themselves from the rule of
plutocracy and imperialism. There can be no doubt that without this
policy Moscow could not have become the centre of organization of the
friendship of nations and of their fraternal cooperation in our
Moscow is today not only the initiator in the building of the new way
of life of the working people of the capital, a life free from want and
wretchedness suffered by millions of poor and unemployed. Moscow is
also a model for all the capitals in the world in this respect. One of
the gravest sores of the large capitals of countries in Europe, Asia
and America are the slums in which millions of impoverished working
people are doomed to wretchedness and a slow and painful death. The
service which Moscow has rendered is that it completely abolished these
slums and gave the working people the opportunity to move out of their
cellars and hovels into the apartments and houses of the bourgeoisie
and into the new comfortable houses which have been built by the Soviet
Lastly, the service Moscow renders is that it is the herald of the
struggle for durable peace and friendship among the nations, the herald
of the struggle against the incendiaries of a new war. For the
imperialists, war is the most profitable undertaking. It is not
surprising that the agents of imperialism are trying, in ‘one way or
another, to provoke a new war. The service which Moscow renders is that
it unceasingly exposes the incendiaries of a new war and rallies around
the banner of peace all the peace-loving nations. It is common
knowledge that the peace-loving nations look with hope to Moscow as the
capital of the great peace-loving power and as a mighty bulwark of
It is because of these services that our country is today celebrating
the 800th anniversary of Moscow with such love and reverence for her
Long live our mighty, beloved, Soviet, Socialist Moscow!
("Soviet Calender 1917 - 1947")
Letter to the State President of Finland, Paasikivi
Proposal of the Soviet government on the conclusion of a Soviet-Finnish Friendship, Cooperation and Support Treaty
February 22, 1948
As you know, two out of three of the countries bordering the U.S.S.R.,
that stood on the side of Germany against the U.S.S.R. during the war,
namely Hungary and Rumania, have signed a support treaty against an
eventual German aggression with the U.S.S.R.
As is also known, our two countries stood together strongly in sympathy
throughout this aggression, in which we, together with you, bear the
responsibility before our peoples if we allow the repetition of such an
I am of the opinion that a support treaty with the U.S.S.R., against an
eventual German aggression is of no less, interest for Finland than for
Rumania and Hungary.
Out of these considerations and from the wish to create better
relations between our countries for the strengthening of peace and
security, the Soviet government offers the conclusion of a
Soviet-Finnish Friendship, Cooperation and Support Treaty like the
Hungarian-Soviet and Rumanian-Soviet treaties.
Should there be no objections from the Finnish side, I would propose
that a Finnish delegation be sent to the U.S.S.R. to conclude such a
Should it be more convenient for you to carry through the negotiations
and the conclusion of the treaty in Finland, the Soviet government
offers to send their delegation to Helsinki.
Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R.
("Daily Review," No. 52, 2 March, 1948)
Speech given at the dinner in honour of the Finish Government Delegation
April 7, 1948
I would like to say a few words about the significance of the Treaty of
Friendship and Mutual Help between the Soviet Union and Finland, which
was signed yesterday.
This treaty signifies a change in the relations between our countries.
As it is known, in the course of 150 years of relations between Russia
and Finland there has been mutual distrust. The Finns distrusted the
Russians, the Russians distrusted the Finns. From the Soviet side there
resulted an attempt in the past to break the distrust that stood
between the Russians and the Finns. That was at the time that Lenin, in
1917, proclaimed the independence of Finland. From an historical point
of view, that was an outstanding act. But sadly the distrust was not
thereby broken – the distrust stayed distrust. The result was two wars
I would like us to go over from the long period of mutual distrust in
the course of which we went to war with each other twice, to a new
period in our relations: the period of mutual trust.
It is necessary that the conclusion of this treaty breaks this distrust
and builds a new basis for relations between our peoples and that it
signifies a great change in the relations between our countries towards
trust and friendship.
We want this acknowledged not only by those present in this hall, but
also by those outside this hall, as much in Finland as in the Soviet
One must not believe that the distrust, between our peoples can be
removed all at once. That is not done so quickly. For a long time there
will be remnants of this distrust, for the abolition of which one must
work and struggle hard, and to build and strengthen a tradition of
mutual friendship between the U.S.S.R. and Finland.
There are treaties that are based upon equality and some that are not.
The Soviet-Finnish treaty is a treaty that is based upon equality, it
has been concluded on the basis of full equality of the partners.
Many believe that between a big and little nation there cannot be
relations which are based on equality. But we Soviet people are of the
opinion that such relations can and should exist. We Soviet people are
of the opinion that every nation, great or small, has special-
qualities that only they have and no other nation possesses. These
peculiarities are their contribution, that every nation should
contribute, to the common treasure of the culture of the world. In this
sense, all nations, big and small, are in the same situation, and’
every nation is as equally important as the next nation.
So the Soviet people are of the opinion that Finland, although a small
country, is in this treaty, as equal a partner as the Soviet Union.
You do not find many politicians of the great powers that would regard
the small nations as the equals of the larger nations. Most of them
look down upon the small nations. They are not disinclined,
occasionally, to make a onesided guarantee for a small nation. These
politicians do not, in general, conclude treaties which depend on
equality, with small nations, as they do not regard small nations as
I propose a toast to the Soviet-Finnish treaty, and to the change for
the better in the relations between our countries that this treaty
("Pravda," 13 April, 1948)
Answer to the Open Letter of Henry Wallace
May 17, 1948
I believe that among the political documents of recent times, that have
the strengthening of peace, the furthering of international cooperation
and the securing of democracy as their aims, the open letter of Henry
Wallace, the presidential candidate of the Third Party in the U.S.A.,
is the most important.
The open letter of Wallace cannot be regarded as a mere exposition of
the wish to improve the international situation, as an exposition of
the wish for a peaceful settlement of the differences of opinion
between the Soviet Union and the U.S.A., and the wish to find a way
towards such a settlement. The declaration of the government of the
U.S.A. of 4 May, and the answer of the Soviet government of 9 May are,
therefore, insufficient, because they do not go so far as to declare
that the settlement of the Soviet-American differences of opinion is
The great importance of the open letter lies in the fact that it is not
limited just to that, to giving a declaration, but rather exceeds that,
- a more important step, an advance, -and proposes a concrete programme
for the peaceful settlement of the differences of opinion between the
Soviet Union and the U.S.A.
One cannot say that the open letter of Wallace invariably deals with
all the differences. One also cannot say that none of the formulas and
opinions in the open letter need to be improved. But that is not the
important thing at the moment. The important thing is that Wallace, in
his letter, makes an open and honest attempt to work out a peaceful
programme for a peaceful settlement and gives concrete proposals on all
the points of difference between the Soviet Union and the U.S.A.
These proposals are generally known:
General limitation of armaments and the forbidding of atomic weapons.
Conclusion of a peace treaty with Germany and Japan and the withdrawal
of the troops from these countries.
Withdrawal of the troops from China and Korea.
Consideration for the right of nations to self-determination and non-interference in their internal affairs.
Forbidding the building of military bases in the countries that belong to the United Nations.
Development of international trade in every area, with the elimination of all discrimination.
Help and rebuilding within the framework of the United Nations for countries that suffered from the war.
Defence of democracy and the securing of civil rights in all countries, etc.
One can be for or against these proposals; but no statesman that has
anything to do with the matter of peace and cooperation of nations can
ignore this programme, which reflects the hopes and longing of the
peoples for the strengthening of peace, and which, without doubt, will
find the support of millions of the common people.
I do not know whether the government of the U.S.A. acknowledges the
programme of Wallace as a basis for understanding between the U.S.S.R.
and the U.S.A. As far as the government of the U.S.S.R. is concerned,
we believe that the programme of Wallace could be a good and fruitful
foundation for such understanding and for the development of
international cooperation, because the government of the U.S.S.R. is of
the opinion that despite the differences in their economic systems and
ideologies, these systems can live side by side and that peaceful
settlement of the differences between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. is
not only possible, but also absolutely necessary in the interests of
("Pravda," 18 May, 1948)
Greetings Telegram from Stalin and Molotov to the President of the Czechoslovakian Republic Klement Gottwald
On the occasion of the election of Klement Gottwald as President of the Czechoslovakion Republic
June 17, 1948
Accept our sincere good wishes on the victory of people's democracy and
on your election as President of the Czechoslovakian Republic.
J. Stalin – V. Molotov
("Daily Review," Berlin Ed., No. 139, 17 June, 1948)
Telegram to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Italy
On the occasion of the criminal attempt on the life of Comrade Togliatti
July 14, 1948
To the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Italy.
The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
(Bolshevik) is shocked over the criminal attempt by worthless elements
on the life of the leader of the working class and all the Italian
working people, our beloved Comrade Togliatti.
The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
(Bolshevik) is grieved that the friends of Comrade Togliatti were
unsuccessful in protecting him from the treacherous ambush.
In the name of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
("Pravda" 15 July, 1948)
Answering letter to the Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Korean People's Democratic Republic Kim Ir Sen
On the question of the establishment of
diplomatic and economicr relations between the U.S.S.R. and the Korean
People's Democratic Republic
October 12, 1948
To Mr. Kim Ir Sen, Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Korean People's Democratic Republic.
I confirm that I have received your letter of 8 October, in which you
inform us that the government of the Korean People's Democratic
Republic steps towards exercising its duty, and proposes to establish
diplomatic relations with the U.S.S.R., to exchange ambassadors which
also comply with the establishment of economic relations between the
The Soviet government that is unchangeably for the right of the Korean
people to commence the building of an united, independent state, greets
the establishment of the Korean government and wishes them success in
their work for the national rebirth and the democratic development of
Korea. The Soviet government declares its readiness to establish
diplomatic relations between the U.S.S.R. and the Korean People's
Democratic Republic, to exchange ambassadors and to immediately
establish complementary economic relations.
("Pravda" 13 October, 1948)
Berlin Crisis, the U.N. and Anglo-American Agressive Policies, Churchill
October 28, 1948
[Interview with correspondent of Pravda, October 28, 1948]
Question: How do you regard the results of the discussions in
the Security Council on the question of the situation in Berlin and the
conduct of the Anglo-American and French representatives in this
Answer: I regard them as a display of the aggressiveness of the policy of Anglo-American and French ruling circles.
Question: Is it true that in August of this year agreement had already been reached among the four powers on the question of Berlin?
Answer: Yes, that is true. Agreement is known to have been
reached in Moscow on August 30 last, among the representatives of the
U.S.S.R., the U.S.A., Great Britain, and France regarding the
simultaneous implementation of measures for the lifting of transport
restrictions, on the one hand, and for the introduction of the German
mark of the Soviet zone in Berlin as the sole currency, on the other
hand. That agreement does not hurt anyone’s prestige. It takes into
account the interests of the parties concerned and insures the
possibility of further co-operation. But the governments of the U.S.A.
and Great Britain disavowed then representatives in Moscow and declared
the agreement to be null and void, that is, they violated the
agreement, having decided to refer the question to the Security Council
where the Anglo-Americans have a guaranteed majority.
Question: Is it true that, in Paris during the recent
discussions on the question in the Security Council, an agreement on
the situation in Berlin had again been reached in unofficial talks even
before the question was voted upon in the Security Council?
Answer: Yes. That is true. Dr. Bramuglia, the representative of
the Argentine and president of the Security Council, who conducted
unofficial talks with Comrade Vishinsky on behalf of the other powers
concerned, did have in his hands an agreed-upon draft decision on the
question of the situation in Berlin. But the representatives of the
U.S.A. and Great Britain once again declared that agreement to be null
Question: What is the matter then? Would you explain?
Answer: The thing is that those in the United States and Great
Britain who inspire an aggressive policy do not consider themselves
interested in an agreement and in co-operation with the U.S.S.R. What
they want is not agreement and co-operation, but talk about agreement
and co-operation, so as to put the blame on the U.S.S.R. by preventing
agreement and thus to “prove” that co-operation with the U.S.S.R. is
impossible. What the war instigators who are striving to unleash a new
war fear most of all is the reaching of agreements and co-operation
with the U.S.S.R. because a policy of concord with the U.S.S.R.
undermines the position of the instigators of war and deprives the
aggressive policy of these gentlemen of any purpose.
It is for this reason that they disrupt agreements that have already
been reached, that they disavow their representatives who have drawn up
such agreements together with the U.S.S.R., and in violation of the
United Nations Charter refer the question to the Security Council,
where they have a guaranteed majority and where they can “prove”
whatever they like. All this is done to “show” that co-operation with
the U.S.S.R. is impossible and to “show” the necessity for a new war,
and thus to prepare the ground for the unleashing of war. The policy of
the present leaders of the U.S.A. and Great Britain is a policy of
aggression, a policy of unleashing a new war.
Question: How should one regard the conduct of the
representatives of the six states, members of the Security Council: of
China, Canada, Belgium, Argentina, Colombia, and Syria?
Answer: Those gentlemen are obviously lending their support to the policy of aggression, to the policy of unleashing a new war.
Question: What can all this end in?
Answer: It can only end in ignominious failure on the part of
the instigators of a new war. Churchill, the main instigator of a new
sear, has already managed to deprive himself of the trust of his own
nation and of democratic forces throughout the world. The same fate
lies in store for all other instigators of war. The horrors of the
recent war are still too fresh in the memory of the peoples; and public
forces favoring peace are too strong for Churchill’s pupils in
aggression to overpower them and to turn them toward a new war.
(For Peaceful Coexistence: Post War Interviews, International Publishers, New York, 1951)
Berlin, Disarmament, Stalin-Truman Meeting
January 27, 1949
[Interview with Kingsbury Smith, representative of International News Service, January 27, 1949]
Question: Would the government of the U.S.S.R. be prepared to
consider the issuance of a joint declaration with the government of the
United States of America, asserting that the respective governments
have no intention of resorting to war against one another?
Answer: The Soviet government would be prepared to consider the issuance of such a declaration.
Question: Would the government of the U.S.S.R, be prepared to
join with the government of the United States of America in measures
designed to implement this pact of peace, such as gradual disarmament?
Answer: Naturally, the government of the U.S.S.R. could
cooperate with the government of the United States of America in taking
measures designed to implement this pact of peace and leading to
Question: If the governments of the United States of America,
the United Kingdom, and France agreed to postpone the establishment of
a separate Western German state, pending a meeting of the Council of
Foreign Ministers to consider the German problem as a whole, would the
Government of the U.S.S.R. be prepared to remove the restrictions which
the Soviet authorities have imposed on communications between Berlin
and the Western zones of Germany?
Answer: Provided the United States of America, Great Britain,
and France observe the conditions set forth in the third question, the
Soviet government sees no obstacles to lifting transport restrictions,
on the understanding, however, that transport and trade restrictions
introduced by the three Powers should be lifted simultaneously.
Question: Would Your Excellency be prepared to confer with
President Truman at a mutually suitable place to discuss the
possibility of concluding such a pact of peace?
Answer: I have already stated before that there is no objection to a meeting.
(For Peaceful Coexistence: Post War Interviews, International Publishers, New York, 1951)
Answer to Kingsbury Smith
On the question of a meeting with Truman
February 2, 1949
To Mr. Kingsbury Smith, European General Director of the "International News Service" Agency.
I have received your telegram of 1 February.
I thank President Truman for the invitation to Washington. It i has
long been my wish to travel to Washington, as I formerly said to
President Roosevelt in Yalta and to President Truman in Potsdam. Sadly,
I do not have the possibility of realizing my wish at present, as the
doctor has decided against my making a long journey, especially by sea
The government of the Soviet Union would greet a visit from the
President to the U.S.S.R. One could hold a conference in Moscow,
Leningrad or in Kaliningrad, Odessa or Yalta, whichever the President
chooses, - of course, in so far as it presents no inconvenience.
However, if this proposal meets with objections, one could hold a
meeting in Poland or in Czechoslovakia, at the President’s convenience.
("New World," February 1949, p. 4)
Answering Telegram to the Minister President of the Mongolian People's Republic – Marshal Tshoibalsan
On the occasion of the third. anniversary of the
signing of the Friendship and Support Treaty between the U.S.S.R. and
the Mongolian People’ s Republic
March 1, 1949
To the Prime Minister of the Mongolian People’s Republic, Marshal Tshoibalsan.
I thank you, and in your person, the government of the Mongolian
People’s Republic for the warm congratulations on the third anniversary
of the Treaty of Friendship and Support concluded between our countries.
I am convinced that because of this treaty the further development of
cooperation between our countries will broaden and strengthen the basis
of friendship between our peoples and will promote their prosperity.
("Daily Review," Berlin Ed., No. 51, 2 March, 1949)
Telegram to the Minister President of the People's Republic of Poland Josef Cyrankiewicz
On the occasion of the fourth anniversary of the Soviet-Polish Treaty of Friendship
April 21, 1949
On the occasion of the fourth anniversary of the Soviet-Polish Treaty
of Friendship, Mutual Assistance and Cooperation after the war, I send
you, Mr. Minister President, my sincere best wishes.
Accept my wishes for the further success ‘of the Polish people and for
the thriving of the Polish People’s Republic, for the strengthening of
the friendship and alliance between our countries.
("Daily Review," Berlin Ed., No. 93, 22 April, 1949)
Obituary of G.M. Dimitrov
Georgi Mikhailovitch Dimitrov was born on June 18, 1882, in the town of
Radomir, of a proletarian revolutionary family. When he was only 15
years old, the young Dimitrov, working as a compositor in a printshop,
joined the revolutionary movement and took an active part in the work
of the oldest Bulgarian trade union of printers.
In 1902, Dimitrov joined the Bulgarian Workers’ Social Democratic
Party. He actively combated revisionism on the side of the
revolutionary Marxist wing of Tesnyaki led by Dimitri Blagoyev.
The self-sacrificing revolutionary struggle of Dimitrov earned him the
warm love of the revolutionary workers of Bulgaria, who, in 1905,
elected him secretary of the Alliance of Revolutionary Trade
Associations of Bulgaria. In that post he remained right up to 1923,
when that alliance was disbanded by the fascists.
While leading the struggle of the Bulgarian proletariat, Dimitrov
displayed courage and staunchness in the revolutionary struggles, was
repeatedly arrested and persecuted. In the September armed uprising of
1923 in Bulgaria he headed the Central Revolutionary Committee, set an
example of revolutionary fearlessness, unflinching staunchness and
devotion to the cause of the working class. For his leadership of the
armed uprising in 1923 the fascist court sentenced Dimitrov in his
absence to death. In 1926, after the provocative trial, engineered by
the fascists, against the leadership of the Communist Party, Dimitrov
was again sentenced to death in his absence.
Compelled, in 1923, to emigrate from Bulgaria, Dimitrov led the life of
a professional revolutionary. He worked actively in the Executive
Committee of the Communist International.
In 1933, he was arrested in Berlin for revolutionary activity. During
the Leipzig Trial, Dimitrov became the standard-bearer of the struggle
against fascism and imperialist war. His heroic conduct in the court,
the words of wrath which he flung in the face of the fascists, exposing
their infamous provocation in connection with the Reichstag fire,
unmasked the fascist provocateurs and roused new millions of workers
throughout the world to the struggle against fascism.
In 1935, Dimitrov was elected General Secretary of the Executive
Committee of the Communist International. He waged a persistent
struggle for the creation and consolidation of the united proletarian
and popular front for the struggle against fascism, against the war
which the fascist rulers of Germany, Japan and Italy were preparing. He
called untiringly on the masses of the working people of all countries
to rally around the Communist Parties in order to bar the way to the
Dimitrov did great work in the ranks of the international Communist
movement in forging the leading cadres of Communist Parties loyal to
the great teachings of Marxism-Leninism, to the principles of
proletarian internationalism, to the cause of the defense of the
interests of the people’s masses in their respective countries.
During the Second World War, Georgi Dimitrov called on the Communists
to head the national-liberation anti-fascist movement, and tirelessly
worked at organizing all patriotic forces for the rout of the fascist
invaders. He led the struggle of the Bulgarian Workers’ Party
(Communists) and all Bulgarian patriots who rose in arms against the
For his outstanding services in the struggle against fascism he was, in
1945, awarded the Order of Lenin by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet
of the U.S.S.R.
After the defeat of fascist Germany, Georgi Mikhailovitch Dimitrov led
the building of the new People’s Democratic Republic of Bulgaria, and
laid the foundation for the eternal friendship between the Bulgarian
people and the peoples of the Soviet Union. Untiringly working for the
consolidation of the united anti-imperialist camp and the rallying of
all democratic forces, Georgi Mikhailovitch Dimitrov mercilessly
exposed the betrayal of the cause of Socialism and the united
anti-imperialist front by Tito’s nationalist clique.
In the person of Dimitrov, the working people of the whole world have
lost an ardent fighter, who gave all his heroic life to the supreme
service of the cause of the working class, the cause of Communism. The
death of Dimitrov is a great loss to the whole international working
class and Communist movement, to all fighters for lasting peace and a
people’s democracy. By his self-sacrificing struggle in the ranks of
the working-class movement, by his boundless devotion to the great
teachings of Lenin and Stalin, Dimitrov earned the warm love of the
working people of the whole world.
The life of Dimitrov, loyal comrade-in-arms of Lenin and Stalin,
staunch revolutionary and anti-fascist champion, will serve as an
inspiring example to all fighters for the cause of peace and democracy,
Farewell, our dear friend and comrade-in-arms!
(Signed) Andreyev, Beria, Bulganin, Voroshilov, Kaganovitch,
Kosygin, Malenkov, Mikoyan, Molotov, Ponomarenko, Popov, Pospelov,
Stalin, Suslov, Khrushchev, Shvernik, Shkiryatov.
Telegram to the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the People's Republic of Bulgaria – Vassil Kolaroff
On the occasion of the fifth anniverasry of the liberation of Bulgaria
I greet the government of the Bulgarian People's Republic, and you
personally, on the national holiday celebrating the fifth anniversary
of the liberation of Bulgaria. I send best wishes to the fraternal
("Daily Review," Vol. 2, No. 213, 10 September, 1949)
Greetings Telegram to Comrade Marcel Cachin
On the occasion of his 80th Birthday
September 20, 1949
To Comrade Cachin,
Dear Comrade Cachin,
Permit me, on your 80th birthday, to congratulate you, as the founder
of the Communist Party of France, as the faithful son of the French
people and as the eminent leader of the international workers movement.
I wish you health and long life, for the well-being of the French people and the people of all the world.
With fraternal greetings.
("Pravda," 24 September, 1949)
October 13, 1949
[Greetings to the President and Prime Minister of the German Democratic Republic, October 13, 1949]
Allow me to congratulate you and, in your persons, the German people,
on the creation of the German Democratic Republic and the election of
the former to the presidency and the latter as Prime Minister of the
German Democratic Republic.
The formation of the peace-loving German Democratic Republic is a
turning point in the history of Europe. There can be no doubt that the
existence of a peace-loving democratic Germany side by side with the
existence of the peace-loving Soviet Union excludes the possibility of
new wars in Europe, puts an end to bloodshed in Europe, and makes
impossible the enslaving of European countries by the world
The experience of the recent war showed that the biggest sacrifices in
this war were borne by the German and Soviet peoples, and that these
two peoples possess the greatest potentialities in Europe for
accomplishing great actions of world importance. If these two peoples
display determination to fight for peace, straining their energies to
the same extent as they did to wage war, peace in Europe may then be
considered as secured.
Thus laying the foundation for a unified, democratic, and peace-loving
Germany, you simultaneously perform a great deed for all of Europe,
guaranteeing her lasting peace.
You need not doubt that in advancing along this road and promoting the
cause of peace you will find great sympathy and active support among
all the peoples of the world, including the American, British, French,
Polish, Czechoslovak, and Italian peoples, let alone the peace-loving
Soviet people. I wish you success on this new and glorious road. May
unified, independent, democratic, peace-loving Germany live and
(For Peaceful Coexistence: Post War Interviews, International Publishers, New York, 1951)
Answering Telegram to the Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Korean People's Democratic Republic Kim Ir Sen
On the occasion of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the U.S.S.R. and the Korean People’s Democratic Republic
October 14, 1949
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your expression of friendship and good
wishes on the anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations
between the Korean People’s Democratic Republic and the U.S.S.R.
I wish the Korean people further success in the building of their People’s Democratic Republic.
("Daily Review," No. 234, 16 October, 1949)
Greetings Telegram to the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Czechoslovakian Republic Antonin Zapotocky
On the occasion of the thirty-first anniversary of the founding of the Czechoslovakian Republic
October 28, 1949
I send the government of the Czechoslovakian Republic and the fraternal
people of Czechoslovakia friendly greetings and also wishes for their
("New Germany," No. 254, 29 October, 1949)
Telegram of Thanks to the Minister President of the German Democratic Republic, Otto Grotewohl
On the occasion of the thirty-second anniversary of the Great Socialist October Revolution
I thank you and, through you, the Provisional government of the German
Democratic Republic, on behalf of the Soviet government and myself, for
the congratulations on the anniversary of the Socialist October
("New Germany," No. 275, 24 November, 1949)
Telegram to the Chairman of Ministers of the Chechoslovakian Republic, Antonin Zapotocky
On the occasion of the sixth anniversary of the
signing of the Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Support between the
U..S.S.R. and the Czechoslovakian Republic
December 13, 1949
To Mr. A. Zapotocky, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Chechoslovakian Republic.
On the sixth anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Friendship and
Mutual Assistance between the U.S.S.R. and the Czechoslovakian
Republic, please accept, Mr. Prime Minister, my friendly greetings to
the people of the Czechoslovakian Republic, to your government and to
I wish the Czechoslovakian Republic well and the further strengthening
of the alliance and friendship between the Soviet and Czechoslovakian
("Daily Review," No. 293, 14 December, 1949)
Open Letter from Stalin and his Closest Associates to the District Election Commissions
On the occasion of the elections to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. of 12 March, 1950
February 17, 1950
Open letter to the District Election Commissions
All of the undersigned have received telegrams from different works,
kolkhozes and election councils of electors of the different areas and
districts, about our nominations as deputy candidates to the Supreme
Soviet of the U.S.S.R. in a whole series of election districts.
We thank all the electors that nominated us as candidates for giving us their trust.
We hold it necessary, however, to declare that, by law, each of us may
stand for election in only one election district; we, as Communists and
members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of ttje Soviet
Union (Bolshevik), have got to follow the directives of the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik). The
Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
(Bolshevik) has instructed us to withdraw our candidature in other
districts and to stand for election in the following election districts:
Andreyev, A.A. – for the Union Soviet in the election district of Aschchabad, Turkmenian S.S.R.
Beria, L.P. – for the Union Soviet in the Stalin electoral district of the city of Tsibilisk, Georgian S.S.R.
Budyonny, S.M. – for the Union Soviet in the electoral district of Shepetovka, Ukrainian S.S.R.
Bulganin, N.A. – for the National Soviet in the Moscow city electoral district.
Voroshilov, K.E. – for the Union Soviet in the Minsk city electoral district, Byelorussian S.S.R.
Kaganovitch, L.M. – for the Union Soviet in the Lenin electoral district of the city of Tashkent, Usbek S.S.R.
Kosygin, A.N. – for the National Soviet in the Invanovo election district.
Malenkov, G.M. – for the Union Soviet in the Leningrad election district of the city of Moscow.
Mikoyan, A.J. – for the National Soviet in the Stalin electoral district of Yerevan, Armenian S.S.R.
Mikhailov, N.A. – for the National Soviet in the Stavropoli electoral district.
Molotov, W.M. – for the Union Soviet in the Molotov electoral district in the city of Moscow.
Ponomarenko, P.K. – for the Union Soviet in the Minsk-Land electoral district, Byelorussian S.S.R.
Stalin, J.V. - for the Union Soviet in the Stalin electoral district in the city of Moscow,
Suslov, M.A.–- for the Union Soviet in the Lenin electoral district in the city of Saratov.
Krushchev, N.S. – for the Union Soviet in the Kalinin electoral district of the city of Moscow.
Shvernik, N.M. – for the National Soviet in the Sverdlovsk electoral district.
Shkiryatov, M.F. – for the National Soviet in the Tula-Ryasan electoral district.
We follow these directives of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik).
We ask the appropriate electoral districts to take notice of this
declaration and to take it into consideration in their documents of
registration of deputy candidates. Andreyev, A.A., Beria, L.P.,
Budyonny, S.M., Bul-ganin, N.A., Voroshilov, K.E., Kaganovitch, L.M.,
Kosygin, A.N., Malenkov, G.M., Mikoyan, A.J., Mikhailov, N.A., Molotov,
W.M., Ponomarenko, P.K., Stalin, J.V., Suslov, M.A., Krushchev, N.S.,
Shvernik, N.M., Shkiryatov, M.F.
("New Germany," Berlin Ed., No. 43, 19 February 1950)
Telegram to the Minister President of the Rumanian People's Republic Petru Groza
On the occasion of the second anniversary of the signing of the Soviet-Rumanian Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance
Please accept, Mr. Minister President, my thanks for your good wishes
on the second anniversary of the signing of the Soviet-Rumanian Treary
of Friendship and Mutual Assistance. I am convinced that this treaty
will continue to strengthen the alliance and friendship between the
peoples of our countries.
Please accept my best wishes for you and for the Rumanian government.
("Daily Review," No. 59, 10 March, 1950)
Telegram of Thanks
to the Central Committee of the Hungarian Workers' Party and the
Hungarian Government and to the Presidium of the Hungarian People's
I ask the Central Committee of the Hungarian Workers’ Party, the
Council of Ministers and the Presidium of the Hungarian People’s
Republic to accept my sincere thanks for your friendly greetings on the
occasion of the fifth anniversary of the liberation of Hungary by the
("Daily Review," No. 86, 13 April, 1950)
Telegram to Comrade Maurice Thorez
On the occasion of his 50th Birthday
April 28, 1950
To Comrade Maurice Thorez
Dear Comrade Thorez!
Allow me to greet and congratulate you on your 50th birthday.
All the peoples of the world, the workers of all countries know and
treasure you as the tested and true leader of the French Communists, as
the leader of the French workers and working peasants in their mutual
struggle for the strengthening of peace, the victory of democracy and
socialism all over the world.
The Soviet people know and love you as their friend and as the
steadfast fighter for the friendship and alliance of the peoples of
France and the Soviet Union.
I wish you further success in your work for the well-being of the French people and for all the working people of the world.
("New Germany," Berlin Ed., No. 100, 29 April, 1950)
Telegram to the Minister President of the German Democratic Republic Otto Grotewohl
On the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the liberation of the German people from the fascist tyranny
May 11, 1950
To the Minister President of the German Democratic Republic, Mr. Otto Grotewohl.
1 thank, you and, through you, the government of the German Democratic
Republic, for your message of greetings on the occasion of the fifth
anniversary of the liberation of the German people from the fascist
I am convinced that the friendly relations between the German
Democratic Republic and the Soviet Union will further develop
successfully for the well-being of our peoples and in the interests of
the peace and cooperation of all peace-loving countries.
("New World," May 1950, p. 1)
Letter to the Minister President of the German Democratic Republic Otto Grotewohl
On the reduction of Germany's repartation payments
May 15, 1950
Dear Mr. Minister President,
The Soviet government has examined the request of the government of the
German Democratic Republic on the reduction of the reparation sum to be
paid by Germany.
The Soviet government has, at the same time, borne in mind that the
German Democratic Republic has been conscientious and regular in their
fulfilment of their reparation obligation, which is charged as high as
10 billion dollars, and that by the end of 1950 an important part of
this obligation, as much as 3658 million dollars, wijl have been
Led by the wish to ease the efforts of the German people in the
reconstruction and development of the people’s economy in Germany, and
bearing in mind the friendly relations between the Soviet Union and the
German Democratic Republic, the Soviet government has decided, with the
agreement of the government of the Polish Republic, to reduce the
remaining sum of ‘the reparation bill by 50%, to 3171 million dollars.
In agreement with the declaration of the government of the U.S.S.R. at
the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers in March 1947, and the
settlement of a twenty year term for the payment of reparation, the
Soviet government has further decided to accept payment of the
remaining part of the reparation bill in German goods (as much as 3171
million dollars) out of the production of fifteen years running,
starting with the year 1951 up to the year 1965, inclusive
With deep esteem,
Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R.
("Daily Review" No. 113, 17 May, 1950)
Telegram to the Central Council of the Free German Youth
June 2, 1950
To the Central Council of the Free German Youth.
I thank the young German peace fighters, members of the All-German Youth Conference, for their greetings.
1 wish the German youth, the active builders of an united, democratic and peace-loving Germany, success in this great work.
("New Germany," Berlin Ed., No. 125, 2 June, 1950)
Click here to return to the Stalin Archive index.