J. A. Alexander
THREE YEARS IN MOSCOW – STALIN’S RUSSIA THROUGH AUSTRALIAN EYES
J. A. Alexander
was the head of Australian Legation in Moscow in 1944-1947. He saw Russia
during the last months of the WWII and witnessed the outbreak of the Cold
War. His view of Soviet Russia is very controversial – he admired the Russian
war effort, Russian culture, people of its lower classes but also developed
very strong antipathy if not hatred towards Communism, Soviet political system
and the top and brass of the Soviet
society – its officialdom. It did not take him long to discover an abyss
between the two main classes of the Soviet society and he – a typical Australian
used to the egalitarian traditions of his country – could not accept it,
especially in the light of Communist slogans. One would not agree with all
his judgments. He failed to understand that this political system with all
its flaws and defects enabled Russia to defeat the Nazi Germany and become
a superpower after the war.
His book – “In
the Shadow. Three Years in Moscow”- on which this
page is based, was published in 1949 but has not lost its value at all after
more than half a century. There is a very important point in his notes – the
Cold War began not after WWII but during it. Communism and the Western World
merely could not co-exist peacefully and that uneasy alliance between the
Soviet Russia and the democratic countries of the West was destined to break
up soon after the war.
Russia is a country
of exceeding beauty. It casts its spell over all foreigners who remain long
enough to know the varying moods of weather and countryside. The people are
most lovable and possessed of qualities of heart and mind which inevitably
draw you to them. That is why one who has spent nearly three years amongst
them, as did my wife and I, must depart with a deep sense of loss, and with
an accumulation of precious memories of this generous and gifted people.
The Russian masses
live in the shadow of Communist dictatorship, a creed which believes neither
in God nor man. The Shadow is darker over them, but it has touched our own
lives, and is lengthening, deepening—threatening to blight all that is best
in our civilisation, everything that is sacred to the individual man and
woman. That Shadow can be dispelled only by the light of truth, which means
that every scrap of truthful information about the lives of the Russian people
is of importance to every Australian. We have this decisive advantage over
Communism in that we believe in the ancient words: "Great is the Truth and
the Truth shall prevail."…
August 28th, 1944:
The era of Victory
is dawning. There are nightly salutes from the Kremlin guns and brilliant
rocket displays. Tonight we watched from the Mokhovaya while rockets flashed
in dazzling colours, making the night as bright as day and in between the
flashes the Kremlin guns thundered.
September 3rd, 1944:
Visited this afternoon
the much talked of Gorki Park of Culture and Rest, and found a charge of
one rouble for admission. This is surely carrying the profit motive to its
highest degree. I had never heard of a charge for admission to a public park.
As a park it was nothing to boast of beyond its lovely situation along the
Moskva River, but there was a spectacular collection of captured German equipment
covering many acres.
September 19th,
1944:
I am amazed and
disturbed that the British Commonwealth war effort gets scarcely a mention
in the Soviet press, and that there is no mention of lend-lease. When Admiral
Standley, the former U.S. Ambassador, made a complaint to this effect a few
months ago I felt very indignant in far-off Australia at this reflection
on our Soviet allies, but now I am here, I feel admiration for his outburst
of honest indignation.
Friday, September
22nd, 1944
The Second Front
operations are dismissed in a few lines on the back page of “Pravda” and
there is a general atmosphere of belittlement of what the Western Allies
are doing. This is all the more surprising after the bitter Soviet complaints
about the failure to open a Second Front.
Admittedly, of
course, an observer must be handicapped by the extreme difficulty of obtaining
exañt information
in the Soviet Union because of the barriers which divide foreigners from
the people in general and the official classes in particular. Then again,
I have tried always to take into account the fearful losses and destruction
caused by war.
From the time
of my arrival I tried to find an answer to the question: what is this system
of government known as Bolshevism? It was many months before I could even
begin to find an answer…
In commenting
on the appearance of Moscow’s people and buildings, I have not lost sight
of the fact that the city has to be judged against a background of revolution,
of a generation of civil turmoil and fratricidal strife, followed by years
of total war against a ruthless enemy who long seemed invincible. As regards
the condition of the common people, the pitiful clothing, the squalor of
the back streets and the wretched housing, it is impossible for a new-comer
to judge how much of this is due to the war against Nazi-ism, and how much,
if any, is due to other causes. But obviously the terrible dilapidation of
the buildings, which filled me with amazement from the first moment of my
stay in Moscow – even as we drove along lower Gorki Street from the airport
– far ante-dates the war against Germany…
Meanwhile it was
clear to me that under the Bolshevik regime the living standards of the Russian
workers are far below those in Australia. The masses are living grey, drab
lives resembling the dole conditions in this country during the depression
years of the thirties… Moscow standards of housing and diet are lower than
could be imagined by the ordinary Australian workman, and there is general
indifference to the hard lot of the masses among the privileged classes.
These comprise party officials, the senior army officers and higher bureaucracy,
the intelligentzia, the successful theatrical artists and other public performers,
and management personnel in industry.
This is more or
less inevitable, for these favoured ones .—i.e., all those whose services
are of special value to the maintenance of the regime on military, economic
and "cultural" grounds—move in their own pampered environment remote from
the masses. They have their own shops, with special prices and rations. In
many cases they can hardly be personally aware, except in a general way,
of the awful living conditions prevailing outside their own privileged orbit.
Indeed they are constantly being assured in the newspapers that the dictatorship
of the Communist Party of Bolsheviks is the best and most advanced system
of Government in the world. To the privileged it is not only personally convenient,
but politically advantageous to believe, or to pretend to believe, this to
be true.
To my mind, the
touchstone of the Soviet system is the condition of the workers and the share
they receive of the fruits of their labour. If this is a true criterion,
and if, in fact, the living standards of the workers are lamentably below
those of Western countries, the Soviet cannot longer be regarded as a Revolutionary
State governed on behalf of, and for the benefit of the workers and peasants.
Rather it must imply be thought of as just another dictatorship, devoted
its own perpetuation, maintained in power by coercion, and by physical control
of all the necessities of life, to a degree previously unknown in the history
of mankind.
The most astonishing
feature of the Soviet regime to a person reared in the democratic environment
of Australia is the privileged position of classes especially useful to the
regime, and the economic discrimination against the workers in the way of
unfair distribution of food stocks and housing space. It is true that the
Soviet system expressly repudiates equalitarianism, but so does the capitalistic
system. In that respect they are in complete agreement. But how can the Soviet
system claim to be an instrument of social justice superior to any other
system if it makes no more provision (indeed far less) for the material wellbeing
of the masses? It maintains special shops, stores and welfare institutions
for its own privileged classes, provides them with the best flats and apartments,
gives them special recreational amenities and indeed every kind of economic
and social privilege which can set one class of people apart from another.
These privileged classes are the Praetorian Guard of the Bolshevik regime,
the bulwark of the Socialist state. They comprise, as already indicated,
the military, secret police, intelligentzia, artists, literatti, higher bureaucracy,
those entrusted with the management of industry, and party officials in general….
If the Soviet
system is related to a policy of improving the lot of mankind, I could find
no tangible evidences of this. Of course, I read every day in the press that
this was the case, that the regime was devoted to the material well-being
of the people and that all they had to do was to work harder and there would
soon be abundance for all—that there would have been abundance already but
for the Soviet's external economies and the machinations of capitalism. But
this was all of the "There'll be pie in the sky" order, to quote the old
I.W.W. doggerel. It was all paper talk, words. I saw no sign of the vast
social betterment programme which the situation obviously called for. The
losses inflicted on the Russian people by the war were terrible beyond description,
and this fact must be taken into account. But one could not help thinking
that very much could have been done already to ameliorate the lot of the
masses had the army been demobilised as soon as the war ended. We know that
an act of unprovoked aggression against the Soviet Union is impossible. It
is the tragedy of Russia and of the world that Russia should have had rulers
who believe in such a possibility, and are still calling up some 900,000
of Soviet youth a year from industry into the armed forces, without counting
the technical classes and officers still mobilised from the war which ended
years ago. The Soviet is constantly bringing every kind of diplomatic, political
and moral pressure on England to reduce her armed forces. It is but reasonable
that she should be asked to set the example considering that she has by far
the largest army in being in the world.
December 26th,
1944:
Christmastime
is clouded for the British community here by Hun counter-offensive and
by the trouble Britain is encountering in Greece. This trouble shows the
shape of things to come. The Soviet press here is minimising the Germany counter-offensive,
and highly critical of the part Britain is playing in Greece.
December 28th,
1944:
I can see now
that the press is writing down the Hun offensive on the Western Front, and
the tight Soviet control over information channels projects the world situation
towards the Soviet reader and listener as through the reverse end of a telescope,
making events occurring in Western Europe and the Pacific seem microscopic.
The telescope is, however, turned the other way when it comes to describing
Soviet exploits. This affects even foreigners, making it difficult to get
affairs concerning Britain and America in true perspective.
Soviet control
over public opinion gives it an immense stability which no Western democratic
regime could possess. The Soviet makes its own public opinion, and not the
slightest sign of disunity is permitted. .
Essentially the
Russian people are a race of individualists cherishing high ethical ideals;
devoted to things of the spirit; realising and valuing what is due by man
to man; loving the abstract virtues; formerly intensely devoted to religion
(and the elder generation is still so devoted) — a people sensitive, sympathetic
and normally cheerful (though extremely volatile). The Russians are intensely
interested in life, in people, and in the outside world. They realise that
they have an enormous contribution to make in things of the spirit and of
the mind to that world beyond the Iron Curtain; that they are being deprived
of contact with contemporary life. To the thinking people of the older generation
of Russians this must be one of the greatest of all their deprivations.
The Russian people
are intensely proud of their past, as indeed they have good reason to be;
and the Soviet Regime sedulously endeavours to turn this feeling to its own
account by integrating or endeavouring to integrate the Bolshevik present
with the historical past. The more thoughtful Russians realise that Fate has
cheated them, and that they can do nothing about it. They must accept the
present, but they do so with that detached submissiveness which, together
with their seemingly unlimited capacity for suffering, self-sacrifice and
deprivation, so greatly astonish the foreign observer.
The personal qualities of the
Russians in general are most attractive and engaging. They are bright, eager
to please others, but possessing a keen sense of what is due to them as individuals.
This feeling is often crushed by circumstances, but it can never be extinguished
by any form of ideological pressure. No matter how humble the status in
life of each individual Russian I met, I was struck by his or her natural
dignity, self-possession and complete freedom from the vulgarity which so
often marks people of other countries in similar walks of life. It was a
saying in the Foreign Colony in Moscow: "Think of a Russian and you think
of someone you love”.
So the seed of communism has
fallen on stony ground in Russia. The people read the daily ideological articles
and tendentious information. They can read nothing
else in the Soviet press. They seem to have the capacity of letting it slide
off their minds without making any great impression. They are ardently patriotic,
but not nationalistic in the aggressive sense. That is to say, they have
an invincible love for and belief in the greatness of the destiny of Russia:
but they are not a war-like or aggressive people. They want nothing more
than to be left in peace, and to know what is going on in the mysterious
world outside. Here again one finds the two nations. The aggressive expansionist
policy of Communism is not the result of any impulse from the masses. It
is indeed quite alien to them. Ready, if attacked, to defend Russia to the
last man, woman and child, they want only peaceful relations with other peoples.
They are not hostile to the political systems and policies of other countries.
They certainly have no desire to impose any form of government or economic
system on other peoples. In so far as the Russian people could have any voice
in the matter, the peace of the world would be —beyond question—safe.
The moral standards of the Russian
people are high. The easy divorce parlor and abortion clinics brought in
by the 1917 revolution have disappeared like a fleeting nightmare. These were abhorrent to Russian instincts. The Soviet
system with its low living standards and planned employment for men and women
makes early marriage possible and the families are large. In Moscow streets
there is obviously a high proportion of girl
babies. Early marriage, combined with a high degree of fecundity, gives the
Soviet a great advantage in population growth over most of the western powers
excepting, possibly, the United States. The girls are taught to avoid the
flaunting of sex. In public and in private they are modest and unassertive,
to a degree almost forgotten in many other countries. There has never been
a cult of the flapper, of flaming youth, and of Bobby-soxers in Moscow. In that respect Russian youth is half a century behind
the times, and a very good thing for the nation this is. The mood of the
Soviet administration in matters of morality is severe, indeed puritanical.
The stage and literature are cleaner, I believe, than those of any western
nation- Nothing improper or suggestive is permitted. Indecent books, relics
of an earlier period, are proscribed. In three years I never saw any signs
of street solicitation or of prostitution. Good conduct in public is strictly
enforced by the Militia (i.e., the Gendarmerie) and in private (to avoid
public scandals it is said) by the M.V.D. The Special Department tolerates
liaisons between foreigners and Russian girls, provided there is no public
scandal, but cases have come under my notice of girls disappearing when the
departure of the foreigner has terminated such associations. I know of one
very painful case of a girl who had associated with a foreigner on a semi-permanent
basis being suddenly taken up and sent off to Siberia.
The non-official Russians I
have met impressed me as being extremely responsive to outside influences. That is perhaps one of the chief reasons for the isolationist
policy of the regime. The people I met were extremely
eager to hear all about the foreigner, his way of life, customs and outlook.
January 5th,
1945:
Tonight we went
to a preview of the film “Ivan Groznii” – “Ivan the Terrible” to us. It is
a remarkable piece of direction (Eisenstein} conceived on an heroic scale
with the theme closely interlocked with present day policy. It is a frank
appeal to a militant patriotism which seeks greater power, if not domination,
for the Soviet Union—a demand for
the "manifest destiny" of Russia as imagined by Ivan the Terrible. Points
which struck me included the emphasis placed on the religious ceremony at
the crowning of the new Tzar—this occupies a considerable part of
the film—and the frequent references to God and the Lord, but never
to Christ and the Saviour. The theme I thought as much a sign of the time
as current Soviet policy in Roumania, Poland and Iran. The real theme is
in the words of Ivan, "Two Romes have fallen, Moscow will be the third Rome."
February 23rd,
1945:
The 21th anniversary
of the Red Army; and the papers are filled with
well-justified rejoicings over the Red Army's successes in World War II,
but have no words of praise for the Allies; indeed speak of them only in
terms of disdain, almost with contempt.
April 28th, 1945:
A member of the
British Military Mission told me today that the Soviet will not allow the
Mission to establish its own hospital. He has spent some time in the North,
and is very bitter about the failure to grant the British such facilities
in Moscow after the £9 millions sterling
sent by bombed England to the Soviet Red Cross. He said that in Murmansk
he saw a beautiful ambulance unit unloaded. It bore a plate, "Presented
by the children of Kingston-on-Thames!" He saw with his own eyes a Soviet
minor official callously tear this of and throw it into the sea.
British Military
Mission people here are amused at the inedible class distinctions in the
Red Army. They say the pension of a Captain's widow
(with two children) is 450 roubles a month—for a Marshal's widow 5,000 a
month, in addition to a lump sum of 20,000 roubles
April I4th, 1945:
We went to the
American Embassy this afternoon to attend the memorial service in honour
of President Roosevelt, whose death has shocked us all. The service was beautifully
simple and informal, but most solemn and impressive. I liked the fact that
it was read by a sergeant, emphasising the democratic way of life to Molotov
and the other Soviet big-wigs present. The idea of a person of minor rank
taking a prominent part in a big Soviet function or demonstration is unthinkable.
April 19th, 1945:
The deliberate
underrating by the Moscow press of what Britain has done in the war, plus
what I have heard from the Military Mission of the treatment in the North
of British
sailors who have
sacrificed their lives to bring supplies to the Soviet Union, have done more
to turn me against this system than even the class distinctions and neglect
of the needs of the masses. Soon after I first came I was given the case
of two British sailors who had brought supplies through the
dangerous Northern route where immersion in the icy seas for a few seconds
means death. They became involved in a drunken brawl in Murmansk, or Arkhangel,
I forget which. The Soviet refused to allow the British admiral to deal with
them but arraigned them under Soviet law, and as they were Poor common sailors
they each received sentences of hard labour one of twelve months and the
other of nine months. In our country a fine of a couple of pounds would have
met the circumstances. But these British sailors, denied their legal rights,
under their own law, were given savage sentences— in other
words, treated as Soviet citizens.
An article in
"Pravda" says that the people of the Soviet Union made the greatest contribution
to the fall of Hitlerism. But "Pravda" did not mention the shipment to the
Soviet Union of 16,250,000 tons of war materials be-ween October, 1941, and
February, 1945, exclusive of flight-delivered aircraft.
April 21th, 1945:
At last, as the
result of strong American pressure, there is a reference in the Moscow press
to the help the Soviet received from the U.S.A.. The supplies mentioned include
13,000 aircraft, 50,000 jeeps, 12,850 armoured vehicles, more than 300,000
lorries and 37,000 "other machines." This is far from being the whole story.
April 28th, 1945:
Now that victory
is nigh, it is sad to realise that the greatness of the victory has been
tarnished by the disappointing realities of Allied relationships, and by
what I read in the press here—the consistent writing down of Allied assistance
to the Soviet.
May 9h, 1945:
Not till 2 a.m.
today did the Soviet announce the end of the war against Nazi Germany, though
the Soviet participated in the signing of the instrument of unconditional
surrender at Rheims on Monday at 2.41 a.m., and this is Wednesday! The Russian
people were not told of this during the day, but only of the signing at Berlin
yesterday by Marshal Zhukov, et al. At all events, to-day was proclaimed
a Day of Victory and a non-working day. The people showed great friendliness
in the streets to Americans, and officers were repeatedly tossed into the
air by the crowds in Russian fashion.
May 17th, 1945:
The last straw
in the consistent depreciation of Allied war effort is an article in "Izvestiya"
by Ilya Ehrenburg, in which, after pretending to praise the Allies, saying
"they had earned their place at the victor's table," he had the effrontery
to add that when Germany invaded the Soviet Union "the Soviet people were
alone." The line here now is never to mention the Soviet Pact with Germany
nor the help received by the Soviet after she was attacked. 1 wonder what
would have happened to the Soviet had she really stood alone—i.e., had
Britain and America been at peace with Germany in 1941. Thus history is falsified
for scores of millions.
May 22nd, 1945:
"Red Star" published
an article stating that Germany had the war won before the Soviet entered
the struggle. Other papers said that the people of Europe owed their liberty
"first and foremost to the Red Army." The world has been most generous in
its praise of what the Red Army has done, but I cannot help feeling bitter
now because I never read a word here of honest praise of an ally, nor a word
of generous acknowledgment of the help the Soviet received.
June 23rd, 1945:
Ehrenburg, whose
patronage is even more repulsive than his enmity, says in his latest article:
"We think with kind soldierly approval of London which held out." Thus dismissing
Britain's war effort, he says, "Only one wound received by Fascism was mortal—that dealt
at Stalingrad by the Red Army."
One of the most
revealing features of the Soviet regime at home is its attitude to the relatively
small number of foreigners admitted to the Soviet Union. These are almost
entirely congregated in Moscow. Elaboration of this theme is of special interest
to the people of other countries who should contrast the absolute freedom
of movement and contact allowed Soviet officials, as in Australia, for instance,
with the barriers which exist in Moscow. The real significance and importance
of these barriers cannot be understood by those who have never come against
them. As will be seen, the subject is a complex one, deriving partly from
the inner nature of communism, and partly from the external and internal
problems which the Bolshevik Revolution has had to face. The attitude of
suspicion and dislike (even hatred in some cases) displayed by those who
form the State apparatus and comprise its protege classes—but rarely if ever
encountered among the common people—is of far more than local importance
to the foreigners in Moscow. It is symptomatic of the brusque attitude to
the outside world disclosed by the foreign policy of the Soviet Union. Consequently
the subject deserves fairly exhaustive treatment because, without an understanding
of the official attitude to foreigners in Moscow, it is impossible to understand
much of which appears enigmatic to the outside world in Soviet reactions
to external events. Contact with foreigners in Moscow is not permitted be
yond the minimum extent necessary for the convenience of the State in its
relations with the diplomatic corps and other foreign delegations and guests
admitted behind the iron curtain. Of course, there would be no foreigners
in Moscow at all, did not the Soviet consider that it derives handsome advantage
from the exchange of diplomatic representatives, and from the few other restricted
contacts permitted on an official or semi-official basis. For the official,
ordinary, normal friendliness with a foreigner is most dangerous. Even suspicion
of such an attitude may well blast his entire prospects. Thus, there is a
special iron curtain between the Soviet officials and foreigners in Moscow.
You can get to a certain point in friendly converse on a matter of business
but beyond that—nothing. You may be greeted with friendly smiles one day
for a special reason, and next day receive nothing but a blank look. If puzzled
and you persist in conversing, there will be an uneasy glance over the shoulder,
a quick muttered apology— "Izvinite, Ochen' zanyat" ("Excuse, very
busy") and a rapid exit. Normal human relations in such circumstances are
impossible. There is generally an atmosphere of strain or stiffness in meeting
Soviet officials, and this explains the grim-faced groups standing apart
from the foreigners at the official diplomatic receptions, the nervous glances
to make sure that other Russians are near by, and the early departures of
the uneasy guests. In Moscow it is not good to be alone with a foreigner.
When reported to higher authority it may seem suspicious. Within limits which
will be explained later, Soviet officials accept invitations to diplomatic
receptions, but they or their wives never entertain the Diplomatic Corps.
Soviet wives are rarely seen at public receptions, and it is practically impossible
to have Russian acquaintances, let alone friends, of one's own protocol or
official level, or to visit or be visited by them…
Almost immediately
after my arrival I was shocked to learn of ill-treatment and brutal punishment
for relatively trivial offences (drunkenness and fighting) of British sailors
in Murmansk, who had risked their lives to bring sorely needed war supplies
to the Soviet Union. I found that this was common talk among the members
of the British Military Mission then in Moscow, who naturally very deeply
resented the incidents I refer to. It seemed incredible
to me that members of Allied Forces, risking to help the Soviet Union, could
be badly treated by officials. However, the facts are beyond dispute. They
referred to fairly extensively in his book on Russia, “Russian Outlook",
by Lieut-General Sir Giffard Martel, the former head of the British Military
Mission, who had left Russia just before I arrived. His book is worth reading,
if only for his account of the conditions which British seamen had to put
up with at the termini of the Northern Route, and throws a white light on
the real attitude of the regime towards friendly foreigners. I never quite
recovered from the shock of these disclosures. The whole diplomatic corps
was talking of them at a time when optimistic hopes of a close, permanent
and fruitful friendship between Britain and the Soviet Union were being earnestly
entertained by responsible British leaders and by the British press.
When I arrived
in Moscow in the summer of 1944, the barriers against Allied foreigners had
been somewhat lowered (temporarily as events were to prove). The legal position
of Russians having contact with foreigners was determined by Article 58 (4)
(1942 Edition) of the Soviet Criminal Code, which rendered liable to drastic
penalties, persons affording any kind of aid to members of the "international
bourgeousie" "seeking to bring about a change in the Soviet system." Under
this provision, the security police could arrest and punish any Soviet citizen
whose association with foreigners it might choose to regard as counter-revolutionary.
Thus, even in conditions of wartime alliance against the common enemy, there
was a sword of Damocles hanging over the head of any Russian who had any
form of unauthorised contact with foreigners. As I have indicated before,
there were certain types of Soviet citizens specially permitted forms of
contact which varied according to the person concerned. Apart from the personnel
of Voks (All-Soviet Society of Cultural Connections with Foreign Countries
-VK) and Burobin (and those registered
for service with foreigners through Burobin) the classes of Russians so authorised
comprised (1) So-called "Tame Russians," i.e., a small group of higher officials,
members of the intelligentzia, and theatrical people—including a few dancers
from the ballets; (2) Officials—principally of the then Kommissariats of
Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, and of the Press Department of Narkomindel,
whose business it was to deal with the diplomatic corps and the press correspondents;
(3) Officials and staff of Intourist, the Soviet travel company; (4) Secretaries
of press correspondents; and (5) Girls, often, though not necessarily, of
the "floozy" type—often, but not necessarily always, "planted" on the foreigner
by the Secret Police.
Many of these
girls were students of English at the Moscow Institute of Foreign Languages
and, no doubt, were encouraged to seek such contacts for practice in the
language. These girl students, whose conduct was invariably most correct,
were quite distinct from the "floozies" who ring up new-comers at the hotels
and try to arrange meetings in the street. Another type, the "good-time"
girls, who, literally in droves, associated freely with the American and
British personnel of the military missions in 1944, were most of all interested
in foreign stockings, shoes, and the food at the disposal of the military
missions.
In the highest
grade of those officially permitted to meet foreigners in Moscow on special
occasions, in the last stages of World War II, stood the ageing Litvinov
- once a world figure and author of the phrase "Peace is indivisible"; one
of the heroes of the attempt in the thirties to establish collective security
against the Nazi menace. With him was generally associated on all of what
may be termed "Anglo-American occasions," Maisky, formerly Soviet Ambassador
to England. Those stood in receiving lines at receptions, saying little to
anyone and generally disappearing early. They were used facades to show that
there was, in fact, contact with foreigners. Ilya Erhenburg, writer of furious
diatribes against Britain and America, was another familiar figure at foreign
receptions and, going well down the Soviet social scale, one remembers the
Burobin (presumably one of organizations working with foreigners – VK)
architect Alexandrov who appeared very often, and continues to appear, at
foreign receptions, having been allowed more latitude in this respect than
any other official Russian I can recall. There were others to be seen occasionally—the
poet Marshak, translator of English verse into Russian; Borodin, who almost
became Soviet Dictator of China, and now as editor of the English-language
bi-weekly Moscow News, is one of the few survivors in a responsible
position of the older Bolsheviks. It became monotonous, and not a little
pathetic, to see the same few Russian faces time after time at English or
American receptions. The pretences wore very thin.
Women secretaries
of foreign correspondents were of course "vetted" by the N.K.V.D. but were
not necessarily agents. The personal contacts of the foreign correspondents
in Moscow are, in practice, confined to the diplomatic personnel, and to
these girl secretaries and their acquaintances. In one or two cases these
secretaries attained positions of no little influence with their employers.
Only when a reception was given by, or in honour of, some satellite State,
was there a very big attendance of Russians. Then they would turn out in
droves and one would be dazzled by the Soviet orders and gold braid. A Yugoslav
reception would, as early as in 1945, rate a Russian attendance of ten times
or more the number normally seen at an American or British reception. At
Anglo-American parties only the "appropriate" Soviet personnel could be expected
to accept invitations.
In no event did
Soviet officials return hospitality; outside these receptions and the course
of official work, no foreign resident of Moscow could expect to meet any
Russian occupying a responsible official position.
The members of
the Allied Military Missions, and later the service attaches at allied embassies,
had no opportunity of even meeting Russian officers, let alone of discussing
service matters with them. Social contacts between them and Soviet service
personnel were strictly limited to formal public receptions.
At that time (end
of the War – VK) high hopes were held out of a change of heart in the
Soviet regime as a result of its narrow escape from destruction, and of the
generous whole-hearted support given it by its Allies, particularly in the
supply of an incalculable mass of war material. There was, undoubtedly, some
relaxation of the attitude towards foreigners, and this led to all kinds
of over-optimistic hopes following ostensible dissolution of the Comintern;
the signing of the Alliance with Britain; the cessation of activities of
the Bezbozhnikh (the anti-God Society), and the patronage of the Orthodox
Church by the state, evidenced by the enthronement of a Patriarch of Moscow
early in 1945; the nationalistic rather than the ideological note struck
in the Soviet press during the war, especially when the war was at a critical
stage.
These circumstances
created hopes which have been completely falsified. The campaign against
religion has not been revived, but in all other spheres there have been sharp
reaction and widespread disillusionment. A powerful ideological drive of
mid-1946 in every realm of Soviet life was accompanied by a severe tightening
up of the attitude to foreigners, and a constant outpouring of attacks on
western ideas…
It will be clear
from the foregoing that the post-war trends of Soviet policy have turned
sharply away from the limited co-operation and contact with foreigners permitted
when the Soviet was fighting for its life. It is the old story of "when the
Devil was sick." The Soviet wants to get as much as it can from the outside
world and to give nothing in return. Distrust, dislike, even hatred of foreigners,
are assiduously cultivated among the people in official circles and through
the press. I rarely, if ever, met any sign of this attitude among non-official
Russians —I was almost invariably treated with the greatest courtesy and kindness
by private individuals and by most minor officials. But with few exceptions
the coldness and brusqueness of higher officialdom gradually become more
pronounced in the post-war period. When I left Moscow at the beginning of
July, 1947, the general expectation amongst foreigners was that their position
was to become increasingly difficult.
August 8th, 1945:
Tonight Moscow
radio announced that from midnight a state of war would exist with Japan.
This is not such wonderful news as it would have been a few months ago.
The Soviet allowed the psychological moment to pass. Japan is already defeated
and it is now only a matter of the Soviet being in for {.the kill.
August 12th, 1945:
Today the great
physical culture display was held in Red Square, but the people saw nothing
of it. The streets were cordoned off in the vicinity
of Red Square. The display was gorgeous to see from
a distance owing to the effective display of bright colours. The costuming and outfitting were not particularly smart
at close range, but the girls, who predominated, looked bright, cheerful
and most attractive. We had not been looking at it
long from the rooms of the N.Z. Minister at the hotel, when we received a
message to close the windoivs. We pointed out that people were watching through
open windows from the Hotel Moskva opposite. But it was of no avail! , A
plainclothes N.K.V.D. man came in with the hotel servant and waited until
we closed the windows.
August 14th, 1945:.
Already the Soviet
is beginning to claim to have conquered Japan, and there has been no mention
of the atomic bomb in the Soviet press since President Truman's broadcast.
"Pravda" today stated: "The strength of the blows inflicted by the Soviet
forces on Japan can be judged from the fact that a move for surrender has
begun there."…
August 15th, 1945:
V.J. Day; a day
of special thanksgiving to all Australians.
There is no announcement
of a holiday or any celebration here. But the British and Americans had their
own celebration. There was no excitement because we had known for some days
that the surrender of Japan was to be expected... The people are told in
the newspapers that though the war is over they must continue to work hard.
There must be no let-up. A woman foreign correspondent told me today that
she had written a story about a Russian official who said to her, "Well the
six days' war is over." She replied very effectively, "It has been a six
years' war for us." The Soviet censor cut this out when she lodged her message
this evening.
September 29th,
1945:
The Soviet is
now vigorously attacking the idea of a Western block while forming
an Eastern bloc itself. The only hope of peace I can see for the future is
a strong Western Bloc, not for aggression which is unthinkable, but to keep
the Soviet in check. Meanwhile there should be a powerful educational programme
in each democratic country to show how completely the Soviet system is in
conflict with the rights of man as conceived not only by Christianity, but
by the radical advanced thought which has lifted mankind from barbarism by
painful steps throughout the ages.
The people of
Australia should know of the awful living conditions here—the complete
denial of the Freedoms, the squeezing of the last ounce of endeavour and
production out of the masses; the abysmal gap between the privileged and
unprivileged classes; and the destruction of individuality of soul and body.
Could those in other countries who are striving for a better world and a
fairer deal of the workers, and who honestly believe that the Soviet system
is a step towards this goal, but know the facts, there would be a revulsion
of feeling which would strengthen the foreign policy of the democracies and
prevent us all from being engulfed.
December list,
1945:
Looking back over
the past year and recalling Soviet intransigence, it is clear to me that
the prospect of co-operation on fundamentals between the Great Powers has
disappeared, whatever measure of agreement has been secured so far has been
gained only by giving way to the Soviet, and this has had the effect of making
the Kremlin believe that by pressure it can get its own way in everything.
There is no realisation among the ruling classes here of the importance of
public opinion in democratic countries.
February 23rd,
1946:
The Soviet press
so far has not mentioned Bevin's offer to extend the Anglo-Soviet Treaty
of friendship to fifty years. So the Russian people have no way of knowing
of this turning of the other cheek—unprecedented, considering all the provocation
Bevin and Britain have received by the constant Soviet attacks in the Security
Council and in the Soviet press.
February 26th,
1946:
Judging by the
vast amount of anti-British matter in the Moscow press, a political offensive
against Britain is in full blast. The effect of this may be the exact opposite
of what the Soviet wants. It fears more than anything else a revival of German
military strength, but its present policy must inevitably bring about restoration
of balance of power theories.
March l6th, 1946:
Amazed to find
that Dr. Evatt in Parliament on March 13, in answering
the question "Does Russia intend aggression?" said he took the view that
the Soviet policy was intended mainly towards self-protection and that pessimism
in regard to relations with Russia seemed to be unjustified. How he could
say that with the information at his disposal completely baffles me.
April 2nd, 1946:
"Novoe Vremya"
(New Times), No. 7, has a sharp
attack on the former Australian Minister (Mr. Maloney) for his criticism
of the Soviet Union. This regime assumes the right to criticise others furiously,
but would deny that right to those who wish to let the world know the truth
about it. It specially objected to Maloney's complaint about the sharp division
of classes in the Soviet Union with which I whole-heartedly agree.
The Soviet contention
that the press in democratic countries is in the hands of monopoly capitalism
or controlled by organisations interested in distorting and suppressing
truth, though possessing a superficial appearance of truth, will not bear
close investigation. It ignores two basic facts—(1) The success and the very
existence of a newspaper in these countries depend upon public opinion. Without
readers there are neither circulation nor advertisements. To say that advertisers
control newspapers is to put the cart before the horse. The advertisements
come from circulation, and so it is the reader who controls, makes, or breaks
newspapers. Journals dependent for their existence upon the goodwill of hundreds
of thousands of readers, as in Australia, America and Britain, cannot be
said to be controlled by a few "monopoly capitalists." (2) Any cause, no
matter how obscure or unpopular, can obtain a forum in democratic countries,
which, of course, is not true in the Soviet Union. This applies specially
to Communist activities in a country like Australia. Our local Communists
have their own press organs which freely circulate and freely attack the
existing order in Australia. Such a situation would be unthinkable in the
Soviet Union. That these communistic organs are not as large and influential
as the great dailies is because their appeal is restricted to an infinitesimal
section of the Australian people. That is the sole limiting factor.
I was amused to
read, while in Moscow, that a paper, "Ourselves and Russia," or bearing some
such name, had been established in Sydney, and that the name of Ilya Ehrenburg,
the violent anglophobe writer, was given as one of the patrons. The issue
of a journal in Moscow named "Ourselves and Australia" would be a stark impossibility.
The dissemination of Soviet propaganda in Australian cities when no propaganda
in favour of our own system of government is permitted in the Soviet Union
is, of course, an all but intolerable abuse of that freedom of the press,
and freedom of information on which we base our approach to public affairs;
but, abuse or no abuse, we are bound to permit it in the name of freedom.
So, the very fact that Communist newspapers and propaganda are permitted
in democratic countries is, in itself, a complete refutation of the claim
that the press of those countries is in the hands of "monopolists and greedy
persons," interested only in profits and perpetuating their own dominating
position; for it is greatly against the private and personal interests of
such persons to permit communistic propaganda. They either do not wish to,
or cannot prevent the circulation of newspapers and ideas injurious to them
politically and personally. In either case, the Communist indictment clearly
falls to the ground in every country which tolerates Communistic newspapers….
The most pronounced
impression one receives from perusal of Pravda or Izvestya is
the brusque, offensive, frequently threatening mode of expression used in
speaking of other peoples—the constant ascription of base motives, the refusal
to admit the possibility of people being actuated by motives of magnanimity,
or even of ordinary decency; the base ingratitude to faithful, generous Allies
who, had they been inspired by the motives attributed to them by the organs
of the Soviet, could have carried on a holding war against Germany and permitted
the Soviet to be devoured by Hitler. This, it is repeatedly declared in the
Soviet press, was the real aim of Britain and America in the days of Munich.
As far as I personally am concerned, I went to the Soviet Union in a spirit
of hero-worship and profound admiration. Nothing there so shocked me as the
unfriendly and ungenerous references to Britain and America published constantly
in the Soviet press, even long before the war had ended…
Remembering the
complete freedom of movement and contact allowed Mikheev (one of the creators
of the Soviet spy network in Australia in 1940-ties
- VK) in Australia, I could not help wondering whether the commonsense
rule of reciprocity should not be applied—that Soviet correspondents in British
countries should be allowed exactly the freedom permitted British correspondents
in Moscow. That is the only principle on which any satisfactory dealings
can be had with Soviet officials. So far from being appreciative of any concession,
help, or privilege, their training is to despise people who help them in
such directions. They are taught to believe—and most of them do believe—
that no one does a kindly, friendly, helpful or decent act for its own sake—such
things are done only from fear, force or craft. They reject the existence
of what we call goodwill—and that is the tragedy of this age. But application
of a relevant reciprocity principle is something which the typical Soviet
functionary can readily understand and even respect. Certainly Soviet officialdom
will yield only what it must in such circumstances, but the other party will
get something in return. By simply granting Soviet requests on a non-reciprocal
basis, the other party receives only contempt in return. Had the Anglo-American
authorities acted on this sound principle of strict reciprocity in dealing
with the Soviet at the end of the war, most of the world-wide evils caused
to-day by Communist aggression could have been averted, Tass, especially,
in view of the exposure of its role in Canada, has no right to any facilities
in British countries beyond those granted to British correspondents in Moscow.
The Royal Commission's
report on the Canadian spy ring showed that Dekanozov, then second Vice-Minister
for Foreign Affairs, had been giving the Tass representatives certain (unspecified)
tasks. Thus was established a link between the Soviet Foreign Office and
the secret activities of Tass.
It is clear that
the Soviet press is simply part of the apparatus of State—a department of
the propaganda machine operated for the express purpose of presenting the
point of view of the Communist Party on all questions, inside and outside
the Soviet Union, and of securing the continuance in power of the present
regime. This purpose is, of course, well-known to the Russian people. The
real power of the Soviet press over their minds is difficult to judge; but
it is inevitable that the constant pressure exerted by 5,600 newspapers,
with a daily circulation of at least 30,000,000 copies, must have a powerful
effect on the people, especially in those cities where there is no possibility
of contact directly or indirectly with the outside world and in the provinces
and countless villages.
Though the ultimate
effect of its work can only be guessed at, the nature of that work can be
ascertained beyond question. The Soviet press is spreading the gospel of
hatred and suspicion, and is probably the greatest single menace to peace
in the world to-day. It is preparing the Russian people psychologically for
the possibility of war. Daily the dispatches flow in from Tass alleging the
revival of Fascism, anti-Soviet campaigns and plots, unfriendly acts and
war-like preparations in this country or that—in the United States, Britain,
Sweden, China, Norway, Italy, Spain, Argentine, Brazil, Canada, Australia—in
every country where there is any opposition to Soviet policy. If they have
any effect at all these dispatches must poison the minds of the Russian peoples
against other friendly peoples. Everyone who disagrees with the Soviet is
called a Fascist by Tass and the Soviet press, and all the time the cry of
"encirclement" is going up. And the tragedy is that all this poisoning of
the minds of millions is so unnecessary. Everyone wanted to be friendly with
the Soviet, to join with it in building a better new world on the ruins of
the old. But Communism cannot understand friendship. It comprehends
only force and subjection.
May 1st, 1946:
May Day passed
off with the same prison-like restrictions in the hotel where we live—diplomatic
personnel were allowed to see the procession enter Red Square only through
closed double windows, though the windows of the Hotel Moskva opposite (reserved
for Russians) were wide open. Protests were unavailing. The corridors of
the hotel swarmed with plainclothed M.V.D. men…
January 7th, 1947:
In the first issue
for 1947 of "Novoe Vremya" (now changed to a weekly paper) there is a long
article analysing Anglo-U.S. relations, in which the statement is made that
since the war British policy has been directed against the Soviet Union. Actually
the reverse is true. Since the end of the war there has been nothing but
attacks and abuse of British policy. The Soviet twice attacked Britain in
the Security Council and did not even trouble to inform its people that Britain
had offered to extend the term of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty to fifty years.
Only after Churchill's Fulton speech was this allowed to get through to the
Russian people. I have read nothing but hostility to Britain in the Soviet
press. The Soviet has never, since the war ended, been willing to reciprocate
the spirit of friendship which Britain and her people undoubtedly felt for
the Soviet Union at the end of the war. There was then a wonderful fund of
goodwill for the Soviet, and it is not Britain's fault that it has been dissipated.
January 10th,
1947:
''Izvestiya" today
published an article by its military correspondent, Galaktionov, on the
battle of El Alamein, making a special point of Viscount Montgomery's smashing
of the German centre which, he said, was the main feature of the battle.
Galaktionov did not mention the Australian Ninth Division (Alexander means
the breakthrough of the Australians on the Northern flank of Axis defense
which became the turning point of the battle – VK).
In Kulture
I Zhizn, No. 5 of March 20th, 1947, Acadamician Tarle published a scorching
article attacking the B.B.C. Russian language broadcasts, claiming that
these were misleading the Soviet people. The following extract from the article
is of interest to Australia:—
"In its broadcasts
the B.B.C. misses no opportunity, whenever apposite and sometimes quite inappositely,
of mentioning Australia. One peculiarity, however, of these broadcasts about
Australia astounds Soviet listeners. The B.B.C. has never once touched on
the question why the attacks by Evatt and other Australians and New Zealanders
upon the U.S.S.R. are so frequent and invariably so hostile. On this the
B.B.C. has remained as silent as the grave. We have heard of the astounding
qualities of heart and mind of Minister McKell, 'the symbol of social equality'
(broadcast of February 7th), and of the boilermakers and blacksmiths who
have been in every respect wonderful and arch-democratic Ministers in Australia.
But why these boilermakers, having worked their way up to the rank of Minister
without exception, gladly and grossly attack the U.S.S.R. we have not learned.
It is incomparably more interesting, however, for Soviet listeners to learn
this than to hear that McKell loves boxing and even when 'Minister for Justice
in New South Wales' once appeared in a match 'wearing a red jersey' and
was so truly democratic as to knock out the teeth of a middleweight champion
who was by no means a Minister and therefore had no right to expect such
flattering attention from His Excellency."
Novoye Vremya,
the influential
Soviet weekly devoted to foreign affairs, in its number of May 1st, 1947,
published under the heading "An Australian Paradise" an extremely unfriendly
article on Australia's attempts to secure immigrants, ridiculing claims of
good living conditions in Australia and drawing attention to slum conditions
in Sydney. It described the immigration policy as a drive for cheap labour
"by stock breeders and factory owners." It asserted that there was widespread
dissatisfaction among demobilised soldiers in Melbourne and Sydney and a
great amount of unemployment. "Asseverations about the high living standards
in Australia have already been exposed as fairy stories."
An article on
Post-War Australia by Zakharin, published in Novoe Vrenya of March
10th, 1948, describes Australia as a place where it is typical to
find wanderers drowning themselves rather than fall into the hands of the
police ("Waltzing Matilda" is quoted as evidence of this!); where human beings
are born and die on the roadside; where the governing classes are now "trembling
before the advance of democratic consciousness." No Australian would, of
course, take this kind of nonsense seriously, but it has to be remembered
that Novoe Vremya is extensively distributed in foreign language translations
in every country where communist organisations exist. It is one of the most
widely read periodicals in existence, and millions of dupes take for gospel
what they see in it. The lies and distortions published about one country
in Novoe Vremya, grotesque as they seem to people of that country,
are absorbed with avidity by the fellow travellers in other countries; so
the exposures in a particular country of falsehoods published about that
country do not change the general propaganda effect. But no country with
any national spirit will allow injurious statements about its way of life
to pass unchallenged.
As far as is known
no attempt has ever been made by the Australian External Affairs Department
or by the Information Department to induce Novoe Vremya or any other
Soviet publication which has published false and misleading information about
Australia to print a retraction or correction. Such attempts would, of course,
be fruitless; but they would, at all events, show vigilance on the part of
those entrusted with the responsibility of protecting Australia's good name
abroad. All references to Australia in the Soviet press are received by the
External Affairs Department and, one would imagine, are made available to
the Department of Information.
So that is what
they say about Australia in Moscow. Only once during my stay in Moscow did
I read anything that could be construed as praise of Australian policy, and
that was in 1947, when, on the principle that any stick is good enough to
beat a dog with, the Soviet press expressed approval of Dr. Evatt's protest
against the decision by General McArthur to send a second Japanese whaling
expedition into the Antarctic.
It must not be
imagined that Australia is singled out among the British nations for contemptuous
and unfriendly references of the type which I have quoted. Abuse of Britain
occupied a large share of Soviet newspaper space after the war, up to the
time we left. An issue of Pravda which did not have some hostile reference
to Britain was exceptional. Canada, despite the immense help which it had
given the Soviet Union through its mutual aid plan during the Great War,
was frequently under the lash, especially after the dispatch of the Musk
Ox Expedition to the North in 1946, and for its alleged willingness to facilitate
United States plans hostile to the Soviet Union. South Africa, too, came
in for a great deal of adverse attention because of its alleged reactionary
policy, exploitation of natives and refusal to grant civil rights to Indians.
Since the Paris Peace Conference of 1946, those who direct Australian foreign
policy have accepted without protest all the Soviet attacks upon the British,
the Australian way of life, and have even taken the side of the Soviet against
Britain at international conferences. That attitude does not represent the
mood of the Australian people, who are the very last on earth to return friendship
for kicks—for contempt, abuse and misrepresentation of the type outlined
in this chapter.
When our own "fellow
travellers" talk about the necessity for friendship with the Soviet Union
they should be reminded that friendship is a two-way process. When he hears
talk about Soviet goodwill by our own crypto-Communists and fellow travellers,
the Australian who knows what the Soviet people are told about us is reminded
of the old saying, "Perhaps it was wise to dissemble your love, but why did
you kick us downstairs?"
January 17th,
1947:
I was amused to
see a copy of "Russia and Us"—a journal
published in Sydney* (Imagine the Russians permitting us to publish a paper
in Moscow called "Australia and Us."} I was still more amused to see among
the names of "Patrons" Ilya Ehrenburg, the writer who sneers at everything
British, including the British war effort. I remember well how he wrote that
the Soviet was "alone" for a year after Germany attacked her, and the indignation
which I felt at reading this, remembering the events of 1939-40 and
Molotov's denunciation in 1940 of Britain and France as aggressors.
Ehrenburg writes the most outrageous things about the Anglo-Saxon peoples,
and it is an insult to Australia to present him as a patron of anything Australian.
He wrote a series of articles about America after his recent visit which
must have had the effect of causing
dislike of anything American in the minds of any unsuspecting Russians who
believed what he wrote
(Note: "All about Soviet Russia and nothing about us" was the
witty comment of the "Sydney Morning, Herald" on this publication.)
January 18th,
1947:
Looking back over
my life here I cannot help thinking that the worst feature of all is the
vast chasm between the over and the under privileged classes. All kinds of
things which strike us as strange and wrong may possibly be excused because
these are a different people with different ways of thought. But privilege
in a system which pretends to be existing for the benefit of all the people
cannot be excused. This is the fundamental injustice in the life of the masses.
Apart from control one’s food and movement, privilege is the cardinal feature
of this system because it creates the vested interest amongst various nuclei
which safeguard the regime. When we see around us how terribly the ordinary
people live—the commercial
shop system with its luxury goods and access to rationed goods for those
who can pay, the closed shops for special sections, army, intelligentzia,
party members, and the like—// is positively revolting. In Australia
one can live without loss of personal dignity and can have a sufficiency
of the necessities of life without the privileges which exist for some. But
how unimportant, fundamentally, these privileges are— the ordinary
material advantages which the rich or better-off enjoy! But here, without
privilege, only a wretched existence in drab poverty is possible.
January 21st, 1947:
The issue of "Time"
which has just reached here contains an article alleged to be based on secret
documents in which it was stated that twice, and especially in 1943, the Soviet
was willing to make a separate peace with Hitler, but Germany would not
bid high enough. This may be connected with the fact that on two occasions,
and especially late in 1943, the late Mr. Curtin solemnly warned his
press conference at Canberra that there was a danger of Russia making a separate
peace.
Major-General
John R. Deane, who was head of the American Military Mission when we came
to Moscow, has written a book, "Strange Alliance," in which, according to
a review 1 have just read, he draws attention to the lack of co-operation,
suspiciousness and other strange characteristics of official Russians with
which I am so familiar. At the same time he mentions the splendid personal
qualities of the non-official Russians he has met—servants and
so on—and has come to the conclusion that there is a vast gap between
the Government and the people. This is, of course, my own conclusion.
February 4th,
1947:
This week's "Novoe
Vremya" has an attack on General Deane, former head of the U.S. Military Mission,
for his book on his experiences in Russia. The book is described as "calumnious."
The charge is made that he attempted to whittle down the supply of lend-lease
material to Russia and that he opposed a second front in the West, preferring
an attack on the Germans through the Balkans. He is described as a pupil
of Churchill. It is interesting and most important as showing Soviet methods
that no details are given to the Soviet reader of any of the alleged lies,
and thus he has no opportunity of knowing of the charges made by General
Deane of inefficiency and procrastination, of waste of valuable war material,
and of defective support by the Soviet of the disastrous shuttle-bombing
experiment.
Saturday, February 8th, 1947:
Following General
Deane's book on his experiences in the Soviet which so aroused the ire of
"Novoe Vremya," a former head of the British Military Mission (Lieut.-General
Sir Charles Martel), who was here before my time, has written a similar book
which has caused another outburst from "Novoe Vremya." The more I think over
the anger aroused in official circles by criticism the more I realise that
this proceeds from fear. It is an admission that thought is stronger than
physical force. Otherwise a regime so strongly entrenched physically, with
unlimited power at its disposal, could snap its fingers at what is said against
it. But the fact is that the Soviet fears and hates criticism more than anything,
thus stultifying its own philosophy which teaches that matter and material
things are primary.
February 26th,
1947:
One recent writer
in England asked "How sure is the Communist Party of
its position in Russia?” Not very sure,
I have long thought. The eagerness to claim every particle of credit for the
victory against the Axis and the generally hysterical note in the paeans
of praise of the Bolshevik Party at the end oj the war convinced me that
it must have felt its position to have been touch-and-go long after the most
critical phases oj the war. There is a severe tightening up now that it is
over its fright.
Saturday, March
2nd, 1947:
This week's "Novoe
Vramya" has an article violently attacking Geoffrey Blunden for having written
"A Room on the Route," which shows the Soviet regime in a most unfavourable
light. It is interesting and highly characteristic of such cases that, although
the book is described in "Novoe Vremya" as containing "dirty calumnies" against
the Soviet Union, the Soviet reader is left to guess what these "calumnies"
are. He is given no information on which to form his own judgment.
On March 6th,
Professor Zvarich gave a lecture on the British Dominions in international
relationships. Here is his estimate of the role of Australia in the war:
"The Governments of Lyons and Menzies have been strong supporters of the
Munich policy and Australia had welcomed Japanese aggression in Manchuria
and China on the grounds that it would divert Japanese aggression towards
the Soviet Union. In 1941, Australia was
herself faced with a threat from Japan, a threat which blinded her eyes to
all other concerns and found expression in opposition to a second front in
Europe. Australia's indifference to the fate of Europe in 1941-42 must
he recalled when Evatt claims the right to have a say in matters such as
the reparations to he paid by Rumania, etc."
I have never seen
a friendly appreciative public reference to Australia in the press—everything
has been hostile.
April 18th, 1947:
Ehrenburg has
begun writing in "Culture and Life," attacking the Voice of America broadcasts
in Russian. He has repeated the old lie, a favourite with him, that the Soviet
was left alone against the Nazi hordes. Churchill's statement in an article
in "Life" which has just reached me, that the Soviet does not want war, but
the fruits of war, is exactly right, tie is right also when he says that
firm but just treatment of the Soviet is the surest guarantee of peace.
May Day, 1947:
Kath and I received
an invitation to the May Day Parade in Red Square. Arrived in bright spring
sunshine. There were three systems of "control" to get through before we
reached the stand. The procession began at 10 a.m. sharp,
when Molotov and other dignitaries (I could not see Stalin, but apparently
he was there) took their usual vantage point on top of the Lenin Mausoleum.
The military part of the procession lasted an hour and a half, and
then came the march of thousands of chosen workers with their banners. Participation
in the march for those chosen is of course "a must" just as participation
by any worker not specifically chosen is a must-not. The workers' procession
went on for hours.
The most interesting
part of the military section was the flypast of some fifty jet planes, the
first time I had seen jets in flight. They made an impressive display roaring
past with incredible speed. I am told that these were manufactured under
licence from R.A.F. prototypes. Marshal Budyenni, with his celebrated moustaches,
was in charge of the parade, riding a magnificent charger. The marching was
impressive for the great number of men used, but rather dragged at times,
and there was an unpleasant resemblance to the Hun goosestep. Security troops,
the M.V.D., swarmed everywhere. When the civilian portion of the parade began,
a stentorian -voice through loud speakers roared out the usual slogans and
salutations, each ending with a prolonged prodigious "Oora," which was the
signal for the marching crowds to cheer in response. I thought the response
surprisingly thin—dutiful rather
than spontaneous and enthusiastic.
May 2nd, 1947:
In the May Day
issue of "Pravda" Ehrenburg has an article on America, as usual dripping
with doubly distilled poison. The tone of it may be judged from the sneering
reference to lend-lease. "There are Stalingrad streets in hundreds of towns
in Europe. I have never seen a lend-lease street." Yet if there is any place
where there ought to be a lend-lease street it is the Soviet Union.
May 9th, 1947:
Today is the day
of Victory, and the articles in the Moscow press are devoted to making the
people believe that the Allies of the Soviet were not really in the war. There are references
to a "four years war" in "Pravda." The anniversary slogan on the front page
of ''Pravda" reads: "Two years ago, the Soviet people, its army and armed
forces directed by out mighty leader and commander, Comrade Stalin, completely
destroyed Fascist Germany and triumphantly concluded the great patriotic war."
One special article in "Pravda" said the most important role in victory was
played by the Soviet people. Then it revived the old complaints about a Second
Front, saying the war could have been ended a year earlier. Today, the article
said, "We could have been celebrating a third year of victory. We could have
welcomed many amongst us whose memory is now sadness. We are not to
blame for lengthening the war into the fourth (sic) year." The article adds
that "certain friends" tried to prolong the war and to prevent the complete
destruction of Hitlerism.
It certainly was
a four-year war for the Soviet, but it was a six-year war for Britain and
Australia.
May 17th, 1947:
Today I went to
the Tass offices in the Boulevar to try and buy some photographs of the Kremlin
cathedrals. I found the entrance and passages guarded by uniformed M.V.D.
men. Everyone, without exception, going into the lift or coming out had to
show a pass. I was not admitted to the foreign section because, so I was
told, the director was out, and no one else could authorise the issue of
a propusk (pass) to me. Tass is obviously under the special protection of
the M.V.D. But why do we in Australia allow the Tass representatives to go
everywhere, even to see defence works, military installations, and the like.
How foolishly trusting we are!
May 20th, 1947:
The British Labour
Party has issued a handbook on foreign policy which shows at last a flash
of spirit—"Cards on
the Table." It asserts quite truly that since 1945 the Soviet has
set itself out to eliminate Britain as a European and Middle Eastern Power.
It points out that this Soviet policy is very short-sighted, because with
British power and influence in this part of the world destroyed, there could
be no one to check any possible American aggression which the Soviet seems
to fear so much. I can testify that since I have been here, I have never
read a line of spontaneous praise of Britain in the Soviet press. But despite
the truculence and insolence of the Soviet writers, Britain still shall stand.
And the United States, Britain's greatest gift to mankind, alone is able
to save Britain and British civilisation, for, as Washington once put it,
"The New-World shall redress the balance of the Old."
May 21th, 1947:
An amusing story
(quite apocryphal of course) is going around diplomatic circles, Molotov
is supposed to have asked Marshall during the Conference of Foreign Ministers,
"How much does the ordinary American earn?" Marshall; ''About 300 dollars
a month." "And how much does it cost him to live?" "About 200 dollars a month."
"And what does he do with the rest?” "Ah! That is his business." Marshall
is then supposed to have asked Molotov: "How much does the ordinary citizen
earn here?" "About 1,000 roubles a month" "And what does it cost him to live?"
"About 2,000 roubles a month" "And where does he get the balance?" "Ah! that's
his business.” This really illustrates the difference between the two systems.
Those who thought it out have a very good knowledge of Moscow conditions,
because numbers of the lower paid people here have to resort to some form
of trading or "speculation," as the Russians call black marketing, to make
ends meet.
"Russki Vopros"
is now running simultaneously in three Moscow theatres, indicating the strength
of the ideological drive against America.
June 24th, 1947:
A new note has
appeared in the Moscow press propaganda against the Allies—not the old
line about the second front being deliberately delayed, but statements that
it would never have been opened at all, except that it was seen by Churchill
and others that the Soviet Army itself could have defeated and occupied the
whole of Germany. Coupled with this is a statement by a lecturer in Moscow
that the industries of Western Germany were deliberately spared (while workers'
dwellings were destroyed in France} in order to bring economic pressure on
France after the war...
Thursday, July
3rd, 1947
…It has been a
strange, but a most fascinating interlude in our life. All the time there
has been a sense of dark forces striving for complete destruction of the
rights of man, of all that Kath and I have been taught to think worth while
in life. These forces have not finally triumphed. No one who has lived among
them can but love the Russian people, and admire the passive resistance they
are maintaining in the war against human personality and the spiritual nature
of man…