Interview with a "Pravda" Correspondent
February 17, 1951
Q. How do you, evaluate the last declaration of the British
Prime Minister Attlee, in the House of Commons, that since the end of
the war, the Soviet Union has not disarmed; that is, they have not
demobilized their troops; that the Soviet Union has since then even
further increased their forces?
A. I evaluate this declaration of Prime Minister Attlee as a slander on the Soviet Union.
The whole world knows that the Soviet Union has demobilized its troops
after the war. As it is known, the demobilization was carried out in
three phases: the first and second phases in the year 1945, and the
third phase from May to September, 1946. In addition, in the years 1946
and 1947, the demobilization of older age groups of the Soviet army was
carried through and, starting in 1948, the rest of the older age groups
That is a generally known fact.
If Prime Minister Attlee was conversant with finance and economy he
would be able to understand, without difficulty, that no one state,
also not the Soviet Union, is in the position to completely develop the
volume of their peace industry, - even more, - dozens of billions of
the state expenditure is required for the purpose of building, such as
the hydro-power works on the Volga, Dnieper and Amu-Darya; to introduce
the policy of a systematic reduction in the price of consumer goods.
Likewise, dozens of billions of the state expenditure is needed to
immediately add to the hundreds of billions for the reconstruction of
the economy demolished by the German occupation, to expand the people's
economy and at the same time to increase their military forces and
develop their war industry. It is not difficult to understand that such
a foolish policy would lead to state bankruptcy. Prime Minister Attlee
must, from his own experience as well as, from the experience of the
U.S.A., know that the increasing of the military forces of countries
and the development of the arms race would lead to a limitation of the
peace industry, to a close-down of great civic building, to a raising
of tax and to a raising of the price of consumer goods. It is
understandable that, if the Soviet Union does not limit the peace
industry but, on the contrary, furthers it, then new building, greater
hydro-power works and water systems will not be suspended but, on the
contrary, developed, the policy of reducing prices will not be
suspended but, on the contrary, continued, they could not at the same
time develop their war industry and increase their military strength
without thereby taking the risk of bankruptcy.
And if Prime Minister Attlee, despite all these facts and economic
considerations, nevertheless holds it possible to openly insult the
Soviet Union and its peaceful politics, one can only declare that, by
slandering the Soviet Union, the present Labour government in England
wants to justify carrying on their own arms race.
Prime Minister Attlee needs to lie about the Soviet Union; he must
represent the peaceful politics of the Soviet Union as aggressive, and
the aggressive politics of the English government as peaceful politics
to mislead the English people, to blindfold them with this lie about
the Soviet Union, and in this way drag them towards a new world war
that would be organized by the warmongering circles in the United
States of America.
Prime Minister Attlee pretends to be a follower of peace. But if he
really is for peace, why was he against the proposal of the Soviet
Union in the United Nations Organization on the conclusion of a peace
pact between the Soviet Union, England, the United States of America,
China and France?
If he really is for peace, why is he against the proposals of the
Soviet Union to immediately begin to limk armaments and to immediately
forbid atomic weapons?
If he really is for peace, why does he persecute those that intercede
for the defence of peace; why has he forbidden the peace congress in
England? Could the campaign for the defence of peace possibly threaten
the security of England?
It is clear that Prime Minister Attlee is not for the keeping of peace,
but rather for the unleashing of a new world-encompassing war of
Q. What do you think about the intervention in Korea? How can that end?
A. If England and the United States of America finally decline
the proposals of the People's Government of China for peace, then the
war in Korea can only end in defeat of the interventionists.
Q. Why? Are then, the American and English generals and officers worse than the Chinese and Korean?
A. No, not worse. The American and English generals and officers
are not worse than the generals and officers of any other country you
like to name. Where the soldiers of the U.S.A. and England are
concerned, in the war against Hitler-Germany and militaristic Japan,
they proved to be the best side, as is known. Where, then, lies the
difference? In that the soldiers in the war against Korea and China do
not consider it as just, whereas in the war against Hitler-Germany and
militaristic Japan, they considered it absolutely just. It also lies in
that this war is extremely unpopular among the American and English
In this case it is difficult to convince the soldiers that China, who
threatened neither England nor America, from whom the Americans stole
the island of Taiwan, are aggressors, and that the U.S.A., having
stolen the island of Taiwan and led their troops straight to the
borders of China, is the defending side. It is therefore difficult to
convince the troops that the U.S.A. is right to defend its security on
Korean territory and on the borders of China, and that China and Korea
are not right to defend their security on their own territory or on the
borders of their states. That is why the war is unpopular among the
American and English soldiers.
It is understandable that experienced generals and officers will suffer
a defeat if their soldiers are forced into a war which they consider
totally unjust, and if they believe their duties at the front to be
formal, without believing in the justice of their mission, without
Q. How do you evaluate the decision of the United Nations Organization
to declare the Chinese People's Republic as the aggressors?
A. 1 regard it as a scandalous decision.
Really, one must have lost what was left of conscience to maintain that
the United States of America, which has stolen Chinese territory, the
island of Taiwan, and fallen upon China's borders in Korea, is the
defensive side; and on the other hand, to declare that the Chinese
People's “Republic which has defended its borders and striven to take
back the island of Taiwan, stolen by the Americans, is the aggressor.
The United Nations Organization, which was created as a bulwark for
keeping peace, has been transformed into an instrument of war, a means
to unleash a new world war. The aggressive core of the United Nations
Organization have formed the aggressive North Atlantic pact from ten
member states (the U.S.A., England, France, Belgium, Canada, Holland,
Luxemburg, Denmark, Norway, Iceland) and twenty Latin-American
countries (Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica,
Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Equador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti,
Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruquay,
Venezuela.) And the representatives of these countries now make the
decisions in the United Nations Organization about war and peace. It
was these that have, in the United Nations Organizations, carried
through the scandalous decision about the aggression of the Chinese
It is typical of the present situation in the United Nations
Organization, that, for example, the little Dominican Republic in
America that has a population figure of scarcely two million, has today
the same weight in the United Nations Organization as India has, and a
much greater weight than the Chinese People's Republic, which has been
robbed of a voice in the United Nations Organization.
Thus, the United Nations Organization, from being a world organization
of nations with equal rights, has changed into an instrument of a war
of aggression. In reality, the United Nations Organization is now not
so much a world organization as an organization for the Americans and
treats American aggression as acceptable. Not only the United States of
America and Canada are striving to unleash a new war, but on this path
you also find the twenty Latin-American countries; their landowners and
merch.ants long for a new war somewhere in Europe or Asia, to sell
their goods to the countries at inflated prices, and to make millions
out of this bloody business. The fact is not a secret -to anybody that
the representatives of the twenty Laiin-American countries represent
the strongest supporters and the willing army of the United Stales of
America in the United Nations Organization.
The United Nations Organization treads, in this maniier, the inglorious
path of the League of Nations. Thereby they bury their moral authority
unci fall into decay.
Q. Do you hold a new world war to be unavoidable?
A. No. At least, one can, at present, hold it to be not unavoidable.
Of course, in the United States of America, in England and also in
France, there are aggressive powers that long for a new war. .They need
war to achieve super-profits and to plunder other countries. These are
the billionaires and millionaires that regard war as a fountain of
revenue, that brings colossal profits.
They, the aggressive powers, hold the reactionary governments in their
hands and guide them. But at the same time they are afraid of their
people who do not want a new war and are for the keeping of peace.
Therefore they take the trouble of using the reactionary governments to
ensnare their people with lies, to deceive them, to represent a new war
as a war of defence, and the peaceful politics of peace-loving
countries as aggressive. They take the trouble to deceive the people,
to force them and draw them into a new war with their aggressive plans.
They therefore even fear the campaign for the defence of peace, they
fear that this campaign would expose the aggressive intentions of the
They therefore even oppose the proposals of the Soviet Union on the
conclusion of a peace treaty, on the limitation of armaments and on the
forbidding of atomic weapons; they fear that the acceptance of these
proposals would frustrate the aggressive measures of the reactionary
governments and render the arms race unnecessary.
Where will all this struggle between the aggressive and the peace-loving powers end?
Peace will be kept and strengthened if the people take the holding of
peace into their own hands and defend it to the utmost. War could be
unavoidable if the arsonists of war succeed in trapping the masses with
their lies, in deceiving them and in drawing them into a new war.
Now, therefore, a broad campaign for the holding of peace, as a way of
exposing the criminal machinations of the arsonists of war, is of prime
As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, it will continue to carry through the politics of preventing war and keeping peace.
("For lasting Peace, for People's Democracy!" No. 8, 23 February - 1 March, 1951)
Click here to return to the Stalin Archive index.