Speech at Celebration Meeting of the Moscow Soviet of
Working People’s Deputies and Moscow Party and Public Organizations
November 6, 1942
Comrades! To-day we are celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of the
victory of the Soviet Revolution in our country. Twenty-five years have
elapsed since the Soviet system was established in our country. We are
now on the threshold of the next, the twenty-sixth year, of the
existence of the Soviet regime.
At meetings in celebration of anniversaries of the October Soviet
Revolution it is customary to pass in review the results of the work of
the Government and Party organs for the past year. It is on these
results for the past year, from November of last year to November of
the current year, that I have been authorized to make a summary report
to you.
The activities of our Government and Party organs during the past
period proceeded in two directions: in the direction of peaceful
construction and the organization of a strong rear for our front, on
the one hand, and in the direction of carrying out defensive and
offensive operations by the Red Army, on the other.
I. Organizational Work in the Rear
The peaceful, constructive work of our directing organs in this period
consisted in shifting the base of our industry, both war and civilian,
to the Eastern regions of our country; in the evacuation and
establishment in their new places of the industrial workers and the
equipment of the plants; in extending the sown areas and increasing the
winter crop area in the east; and lastly in radically improving the
work of our industries producing for the front and strengthening labour
discipline in the rear, both in the factories and on the collective and
state farms. It should be said that this was a most difficult and
complex work of organization on a large scale on the part of all our
economic and administrative People’s Commissariats, including our
railways. However, we managed to overcome the difficulties. And now our
factories, collective farms and state farms are indisputably, in spite
of all the difficulties of war-time, working satisfactorily. Our war
factories and allied enterprises are conscientiously and punctually
supplying the Red Army with guns, mortars, aircraft, tanks,
machineguns, rifles and ammunition. Our collective farms and State
farms are likewise conscientiously and punctually supplying the
population and the Red Army with foodstuffs and our industries with raw
materials. It must be admitted that never before has our country had
such a strong and well-organized rear.
As the result of all this complex organizational and constructional
work not only our country but also the people themselves in the rear
have been transformed. They have become more efficient, less slipshod,
more disciplined; they have learned to work in war-time fashion and
have come to realize their duty to the Motherland and her defenders at
the front – the Red Army. Bunglers and slackers with no sense of civic
duty are growing fewer and fewer in the rear. Organized and disciplined
people, imbued with the sense of civic duty, are becoming more and more
numerous.
But, as I have said, the past year was not only one of peaceful
construction. It was at the same time a year of patriotic war against
the German invaders who vilely and treacherously attacked our peaceful
country.
II. Military Operations on the Soviet-German Front
As regards the military activities of our directing organs in the past
year, these consisted in providing for offensive and defensive
operations by the Red Army against the German-fascist troops. The
military operations on the Soviet-German front in the past year may be
divided into two periods:
The first period was chiefly the winter
period, when the Red Army, having beaten off the Germans’ attack on
Moscow, took the initiative into its own hands, passed to the
offensive, drove back the German troops and in the space of four months
advanced, in places, over 250 miles; and the second
period was the summer period, when the German-fascist troops, taking
advantage of the absence of a second front in Europe, mustered all
their available reserves, pierced the front in the south-westerly
direction and, taking the initiative into their own hands, in the space
of five months advanced in places as much as 300
miles.
Military operations in the first period, especially the successful
operations of the Red Army in the Rostov, Tula and Kaluga areas, at
Moscow and at Tikhvin and Leningrad, disclosed two significant facts.
They showed, first, that the Red Army and its fighting cadres have
grown into an effective force capable not only of withstanding the
onslaught of the German-fascist troops, but also of defeating them in
open battle and driving them back. They showed, secondly, that for all
their staunchness, the German-fascist troops have such serious organic
defects that, given certain favourable conditions for the Red Army,
these may lead to the defeat of the German troops. It cannot be
regarded as mere chance that the German troops, having marched in
triumph through all Europe, and having smashed at one blow the French
troops which had been considered first-class troops, met with effective
military resistance only in our own country, and not only met with
resistance, but were compelled, under the blows of the Red Army, to
retreat more than 250 miles from the positions they
had occupied, abandoning on their road of retreat an immense quantity
of guns, machines and ammunition. This fact cannot be explained by
winter conditions of warfare alone.
The second period of military operations on the Soviet-German front was
marked by a change in favour of the Germans, by the passing of the
initiative into the hands of the Germans, by the piercing of our front
in the south-western direction, by the advance of the German troops and
their reaching the areas of Voronezh, Stalingrad, Novorossisk,
Pyatigorsk and Mozdok. Taking advantage of the absence of a second
front in Europe, the Germans and their allies hurled all their
available reserves to the front and, massing them in one direction – the
south-western direction – created a largo superiority of forces and
achieved a substantial tactical success.
Apparently the Germans are no longer strong enough to conduct an
offensive simultaneously in all three directions, in the south, north
and centre, as was the case in the early months of the German offensive
in the summer of last year. But they are still strong enough to
organize a serious offensive in one direction.
What was the principal objective of the German-fascist strategists when
they started their summer offensive on our front? To judge by the
comments of the foreign Press, including the German, one might think
that the principal objective of the offensive was to capture the oil
districts of Grozny and Baku. But the facts decisively refute this
assumption. The facts show that the Germans’ advance on the oil
districts of the U.S.S.R. is not their main aim but an auxiliary one.
What then was the principal objective of the German offensive? It was
to outflank Moscow from the east, to cut it off from our rear in the
Volga and Urals areas and then to strike at Moscow. The advance of the
Germans southward towards the oil districts had an auxiliary purpose
which was not only and not so much to capture the oil districts, as to
divert our main reserves to the south and to weaken the Moscow front,
so as to make it easier to achieve success when striking at Moscow.
This, in fact, explains why the main grouping of German troops is now
to be found not in the south but in the Orel and Stalingrad areas.
Recently an officer of the German General Staff fell into the hands of
our men. A map was found on this officer showing the plan and
time-table of the advance of the German troops. From this document it
transpires that the Germans intended to be in Borisoglebsk on July 10
of this year, in Stalingrad on July 25, in Saratov on August 10, in
Kuibyshev on August 15, in Arzamas on September 10 and in Baku on
September 25.
This document completely confirms our information to the effect that
the principal aim of the Germans’ summer offensive was to outflank
Moscow from the east and to strike at Moscow, while the purpose of the
advance to the south was, apart from everything else, to divert our
reserves as far as possible from Moscow and to weaken the Moscow front
so as to make it easier to strike at Moscow.
In short, the main aim of the Germans’ summer offensive was to surround Moscow and end the war this year.
In November of last year the Germans reckoned on capturing Moscow by a
frontal attack, compelling the Red Army to capitulate, and thus
achieving the termination of the war in the east. They fed their
soldiers with these illusions. But, as we know, these calculations of
the Germans miscarried. Having burnt their fingers last year in
attempting a frontal blow at Moscow, the Germans conceived the
intention of capturing Moscow this year, this time by an outflanking
movement, and thus ending the war in the east. It is with these
illusions that they are now feeding their duped soldiers. As is known,
these calculations of the Germans also miscarried. As the result of
chasing two hares – both oil and the encirclement of Moscow – the
German-fascist strategists found themselves in a difficult situation.
Thus the tactical successes of the Germans’ summer offensive were not
consummated owing to the obvious unreality of their strategic plans.
III. The Question of the Second Front in Europe
How are we to explain the fact that the Germans this year were still
able to take the initiative of military operations into their hands and
achieve substantial tactical successes on our front?
It is to be explained by the fact that the Germans and their allies
succeeded in mustering all their available reserves, hurling them on to
the eastern front and creating a large superiority of forces in one of
the directions.
There can be no doubt that but for these measures the
Germans could not have achieved any success on our front.
But why were they able to muster all their reserves and hurl them on
the eastern front? Because the absence of a second front in Europe
enabled them to carry out this operation without any risk to
themselves.
Hence the chief reason for the tactical successes of the Germans on our
front this year is that the absence of a second front in Europe enabled
them to hurl on to our front all their available reserves and to create
a large superiority of forces in the south-western direction.
Let us assume that a second front existed in Europe, as it existed in
the first World War, and that a second front diverted, let us say,
sixty German divisions and twenty divisions of Germany’s allies. What
would have been the position of the German troops on our front then?
It
is not difficult to guess that their position would have been
deplorable. More than that, it would have been the beginning of the end
of the German-fascist troops, for in that case the Red Army would not
be where it is now, but somewhere near Pskov, Minsk, Zhitomir and
Odessa.
That means that in the summer of this year the German-fascist
army would already have been on the verge of disaster. If that has not
occurred, it is because the Germans were saved by the absence of a
second front in Europe.
Let us examine the question of a second front in Europe in its
historical aspect. In the first World War Germany had to fight on two
fronts in the west,
chiefly against Great Britain and France, and in the east against the
Russian troops. Thus in the first World War there existed a second
front against Germany.
Of the 220 divisions which Germany had then, not
more than 85 German divisions were stationed on the Russian front. If
to this we add the troops of Germany’s allies then facing the Russian
front – namely, 37 Austro-Hungarian divisions, 2 Bulgarian divisions and
3 Turkish divisions – we get a total of 127 divisions facing the Russian
troops.
The rest of the divisions of Germany and her allies mainly held
the front against the Anglo-French troops, while part of them performed
garrison service in occupied territories of Europe. Such was the position in the first World War.
What is the position now, in the second World War, in September of this
year, let us say? According to authenticated information which is
beyond all doubt, of
the 256 divisions which Germany now has, not less than 179 German
divisions are on our front.
If to this we add 22 Rumanian divisions, 14
Finnish divisions, 10 Italian divisions, 13 Hungarian divisions, 1
Slovak and 1 Spanish division, we get a total of 240 divisions which
are now fighting on our front.
The remaining divisions of Germany and
her allies are performing garrison service in the occupied countries
(France, Belgium, Norway, Holland, Yugoslavia, Poland, Czechoslovakia,
etc.), while part of them are fighting in Libya for Egypt against Great
Britain, the Libyan front diverting in all 4 German divisions and 11
Italian divisions.
Hence, instead of the 127 divisions as in the first World War, we are
now facing on our front no less than 240 divisions, and, instead of 85
German divisions, we now have 179 German divisions fighting the Red
Army.
There you have the chief reason and foundation for the tactical success
of the German-fascist troops on our front in the summer of this year.
The German invasion of our country is often compared to Napoleon’s
invasion of Russia. But this comparison will not bear criticism. Of the
600,000 troops which began the campaign against Russia, Napoleon
scarcely brought 130,000 or 140,000 as far as Borodino. That was all he had at his disposal at Moscow.
Well, we now have over
3,000,000 troops facing the front of the Red Army and armed with all
the implements of modern warfare. What comparison can there be here?
The German invasion of our country is also sometimes compared to the
German invasion of Russia at the time of the first World War. But
neither will this comparison bear criticism. First, in the first World
War there was a second front in Europe which rendered the Germans’
position very difficult, whereas in this war there is no second front
in Europe.
Secondly, in this war, twice as many troops are facing our
front as in the first World War. Obviously the comparison is not
appropriate. You can now conceive how serious and extraordinary are the difficulties
confronting the Red Army, and how great is the heroism displayed by the
Red Army in its war of liberation against the German-fascist troops.
I think that no other country and no other army could have withstood
such an onslaught of the bestial bands of the German-fascist brigands
and their allies. Only our Soviet country and only our Red Army are
capable of withstanding such an onslaught. (Loud applause.) And not
only withstanding it but also overpowering it.
It is often asked: But will there be a second front in Europe after
all? Yes, there will be; sooner or later, there will be one. And it
will be not only because we need it, but above all because our Allies
need it no less than we do.
Our Allies cannot fail to realize that
since France has been put out of action, the absence of a second front
against fascist Germany may end badly for all freedom-loving countries,
including the Allies themselves.
IV. Fighting Alliance of the U.S.S.R., Great Britain and the U.S.A. Against Hitlerite Germany and her Allies in Europe
It may now be considered indisputable that, in the course of the war
imposed upon the nations by Hitlerite Germany, a radical demarcation of
forces and the formation of two opposite camps have taken place: the
camp of the Italo-German coalition and the camp of the
Anglo-Soviet-American coalition. It is equally indisputable that these
two opposite coalitions are guided by two different and opposite
programmes of action.
The programme of action of the Italo-German coalition may be described
by the following points: racial hatred; domination of “chosen” nations;
subjugation of other nations and seizure of their territories; economic
enslavement of subjugated nations and plunder of their national wealth;
destruction of democratic liberties; the institution of the Hitlerite
regime everywhere.
The programme of action of the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition is: the
abolition of racial exclusiveness; the equality of nations and the
inviolability of their territories; the liberation of the enslaved
nations and the restoration of their sovereign rights; the right of
every nation to arrange its affairs as it wishes; economic aid to the
nations that have suffered and assistance to them in achieving their
material welfare; the restoration of democratic liberties; the
destruction of the Hitlerite regime.
The effect of the programme of action of the Italo-German coalition has
been that all the occupied countries of Europe – Norway, Denmark,
Belgium, Holland, France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece
and the occupied regions of the U.S.S.R. – are burning with hatred for
the Italo-German tyranny, are doing all the damage they can to the
Germans and their allies and are waiting for a favourable opportunity
to take revenge on their enslavers for the humiliations and outrages
which they are suffering.
In this connection, one of the characteristic features of the present
moment is the progressively growing isolation of the Italo-German
coalition and the depletion of its moral and political reserves in
Europe, its growing weakness and disintegration.
The effect of the programme of action of the Anglo-Soviet-American
coalition has been that all the occupied countries in Europe are full
of sympathy for the members of this coalition and are prepared to
render them all the help of which they are capable.
In this connection, another characteristic feature of the present
moment is that the moral and political reserves of this coalition are
growing from day to day in Europe – and not only in Europe – and that this
coalition is progressively winning millions of sympathizers ready to
join in the fighting against the Hitlerite tyranny.
If the relative strength of these two coalitions is examined from the
standpoint of human and material resources, one cannot help reaching
the conclusion that the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition has an
indisputable advantage.
The question is: is this advantage alone sufficient for victory? There
are occasions, as we know, when resources are abundant, but are
expended so unwisely that the advantage is nullified. Obviously, what
is needed in addition to resources is the capacity to mobilize these
resources and the ability to make the correct use of them. Is there any
reason for doubting the existence of such ability and such capacity on
the part of the men of the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition? There are
people who doubt this. But what grounds have they for their doubts? In
the past the men of this coalition displayed their ability and capacity
to mobilize the resources of their countries and to use them correctly
for purposes of economic, cultural and political development. One asks:
what grounds are there for doubting that men who have displayed
capacity and ability in mobilizing and distributing resources for
economic, cultural and political purposes will prove incapable of doing
the same thing for purposes of war? I think there are no such grounds.
It is said that the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition has every chance of
winning and would certainly win, if it did not have one organic defect
which is capable of weakening and disintegrating it. This defect, in
the opinion of these people is that this coalition consists of
heterogeneous elements with different ideologies and that this
circumstance will prevent their organizing joint action against the
common enemy.
I think that this assertion is incorrect.
It would be ridiculous to deny the difference in the ideologies and
social systems of the countries composing the Anglo-Soviet-American
coalition. But does this preclude the possibility and expediency of
joint action on the part of the members of this coalition against the
common enemy who holds out the threat of enslavement for them? It
certainly does not preclude it. More than that, the existence of this
threat imperatively imposes the necessity of joint action upon the
members of the coalition in order to save mankind from reverting to
savagery and mediæval brutality. Is not the programme of action
of the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition a sufficient basis for the
organization of the joint struggle against Hitlerite tyranny and for
the achievement of victory over it? I think that it is quite
sufficient.
The assumption of these people is incorrect also because of the fact
that it is completely refuted by the events of the past year. Indeed, f
these people were right we should be observing a progressive mutual
alienation of the members of the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition. Yet,
far from observing this, we have facts and events indicative of
progressive rapprochement between the members of the
Anglo-Soviet-American coalition and their uniting into a single
fighting alliance. The events of the past year supply direct proof of
this. In July, 1941, several weeks after Germany attacked the U.S.S.R.,
Great Britain concluded with us an Agreement on “Joint action in the
war against Germany.” At that time we had not yet any Agreement with
the United States of America on this subject. Ten months later, on May
26, 1942, during Comrade Molotov’s visit to Great Britain, the latter
concluded with us a “Treaty of Alliance in the war against Hitlerite
Germany and her associates in Europe and of collaboration and mutual
assistance after the war.” This Treaty was concluded for a period of
twenty years. It marks an historic turning-point in the relations
between our country and Great Britain. In June, 1942, during Comrade
Molotov’s visit to the United States, the United States of America
concluded with us an “Agreement on the principles applying to mutual
aid in the prosecution of the war against aggression,” an Agreement
representing an important step forward in the relations between the
U.S.S.R. and the United States. Finally, one should mention so
important a fact as the visit to Moscow of the Prime Minister of Great
Britain, Mr. Churchill, which established complete mutual understanding
between the leaders of the two countries. There can be no doubt that
all these facts point to a progressive rapprochement between the
U.S.S.R., Great Britain and the United States of America, and to their
uniting in a fighting alliance against the Italo-German coalition.
It follows that the logic of things is stronger than any other logic.
There can be only one conclusion, namely that the Anglo-Soviet-American
coalition has every chance of vanquishing the Italo-German coalition
and undoubtedly will vanquish it.
V. Our Tasks
The war has torn aside all veils and laid bare all relationships. The
situation has become so clear that nothing is easier than to define our
tasks in this war.
In an interview with the Turkish general, Erkilet, published in the
Turkish newspaper Cumhuriet, that cannibal Hitler said: “We shall
destroy Russia so that she will never be able to rise again.” This
seems clear, although rather ridiculous. (Laughter). We have no such
aim as to destroy Germany, for it is impossible to destroy Germany,
just as it is impossible to destroy Russia. But the Hitlerite State can
and must be destroyed. (Loud applause.)
Our first task, in fact, is to destroy the Hitlerite State and its inspirers. (Loud applause.)
In the same interview with the same general, that cannibal Hitler went
on to say: “We shall continue the war until there is no organized
military force left in Russia.” This seems clear, though illiterate.
(Laughter) It is not our aim to destroy all organized military force in
Germany, for every literate person will understand that this is not
only impossible in regard to Germany, as it is in regard to Russia, but
it is also inexpedient from the point of view of the victor. But
Hitler’s army can and must be destroyed. (Loud applause.)
Our second task, in fact, is to destroy Hitler’s army and its leaders. (Loud applause.)
The Hitlerite blackguards have made it a rule to torture Soviet
prisoners of war, to kill them by the hundred and to condemn thousands
of them to death by starvation. They outrage and murder the civilian
population of the occupied territories of our country: men and women,
children and old folk, our brothers and sisters. They have made it
their aim to enslave and exterminate the population of the Ukraine,
Byelorussia, the Baltic Republics, Moldavia, the Crimea and the
Caucasus. Only villains and blackguards, devoid of all honour and
fallen to the level of beasts, can permit themselves such outrages
against innocent, unarmed people. But this is not all. They have
covered Europe with gallows and concentration camps. They have
introduced the vile system of “hostages”; they shoot and hang
absolutely innocent citizens taken as “hostages” because some German
beast was prevented from violating women or robbing ordinary people;
they have turned Europe into a prison of nations, and this they call
the “New Order in Europe.” We know who are be men guilty of these
outrages, the builders of the “New Order in Europe” – all those newly
baked governor-generals or just ordinary governors, commandants and
sub-commandants. Their names are known to tens of thousands of
tormented people. Let these butchers know that they will not escape
responsibility for their crimes or elude the avenging hand of the
tormented nations.
Our third task is to destroy the hated “New Order in Europe” and to punish its builders.
Such are our tasks. (Loud applause.)
Comrades, we are waging a great war of liberation. We are not waging it
alone, but in conjunction with our allies. It will bring us victory
over the vile enemies of mankind, over the German-fascist imperialists.
On its banner is inscribed:
Long live the victory of the Anglo-Soviet-American fighting alliance! (Applause.)
Long live the liberation of the peoples of Europe from. Hitler’s tyranny! (Applause.)
Long live the liberty and independence of our glorious Soviet Motherland! (Applause.)
Execration and death to the German-fascist invaders, their State, their army, their “New Order in Europe”! (Applause.)
Glory to our Red Army. (Loud applause.)
Glory to our Navy. (Loud applause.)
Glory to our men and women guerillas! (Loud and prolonged applause. All rise.)
Click here to return to the Stalin Archive index.