Letter on Publications for Children Directed to the Central Committee of the All Union Communist Youth
Letter on Publications for Children Directed to the Central Committee of the All Union Communist Youth
16 February 1938
I am absolutely against the publication of "Stories of the childhood of Stalin."
The book abounds with a mass of inexactitudes of fact, of alterations, of exaggerations and of unmerited praise. Some amateur writers, scribblers, (perhaps honest scribblers) and some adulators have led the author astray. It is a shame for the author, but a fact remains a fact.
But this is not the important thing. The important thing resides in the fact that the book has a tendency to engrave on the minds of Soviet children (and people in general) the personality cult of leaders, of infallible heroes. This is dangerous and detrimental. The theory of "heroes" and the "crowd" is not a Bolshevik, but a Social-Revolutionary theory. The heroes make the people, transform them from a crowd into people, thus say the Social-Revolutionaries. The people make the heroes, thus reply the Bolsheviks to the Social-Revolutionaries. The book carries water to the windmill of the Social-Revolutionaries. No matter which book it is that brings the water to the windmill of the Social-Revolutionaries, this book is going to drown in our common, Bolshevik cause.
I suggest we burn this book.
J. Stalin
Voprosy Istorii No. 11, 1953
--------------
(Questions of History)
Letter to Comrade Choumiatsky
11 January 1935
Greetings and best wishes to the workers of the Soviet cinema on its glorious fifteenth anniversary.
The cinema, in the hands of Soviet power constitutes an inestimable force.
Possessing exceptional possibilities of cultural influence on the masses, the cinema helps the working class and its party to educate the workers in the spirit of socialism, to organize the masses in the struggle for socialism, to heighten their sense of culture and political awareness.
The Soviet power awaits more successes from you; new films glorifying, as did Tchapvaiev, the grandeur of historical achievements in the struggle of the workers and peasants for power in the Soviet Union, mobilizing them in order to accomplish new tasks and reviewing not only the successes but also pointing out the difficulties in socialist construction.
The Soviet power awaits from you a courageous investigation by your teachers in the new fields of art, into this most important sphere of art (Lenin) which above all reflects the character of the masses.
J. Stalin
Pravda
11 January 1935
-------------------
To the Collective of the Constructors of the Moscow Underground
January, 1944
I congratulate the men and women workers and the technical engineering workers of the construction of the Moscow Underground; the Order of Lenin is av/arded them for their successful achievements during the difficult conditions of war, the construction of the third section of the Moscow Underground.
The construction of the Underground in the conditions of war is not only of economic and cultural significance, but also of defensive significance. The Party and the Government greatly appreciate the self-sacrificing work of the Underground construction workers.
I express the firm conviction that in the future the builders of the Underground will, by their heroic work and the intensity of their efforts, ensure the realization of the task of the State Committee for Defence - the completion of the fourth section of the Moscow Underground.
I wish the utmost success to the Collective of the Moscow Underground Construction.
J. Stalin
--------------
Exchange of Messages Between Mr. E. Bevin and J. V. Stalin, Concerning the Anglo-Soviet Treaty
January 19 and January 22, 1947
On January 18, 1947, Mr. Bevin, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Great Britain, through the medium of the British Ambassador in the U.S.S.R., Sir M. Peterson, conveyed the following message to J. V. Stalin, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R.:
I am gratified at the friendly reception which was given to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff in Moscow and am studying with interest the account which he has given me of his conversations with you.
We are however disturbed at the suggestion which you made to him that the Anglo-Soviet Treaty of Alliance and Post-War Collaboration might be regarded in London as “suspended in the air” since it might be regarded as superseded by the United Nations Organisation. This view has been attributed to me personally in the most misleading manner by Pravda in an article of January 15, which takes out of its context and misinterprets one sentence in my broadcast of December 22. In fact, I said what all the other major Allies have said, namely, that they based their policy on the United Nations Organisation.
I cannot understand what is behind this line of reasoning, and I am more amazed at the Pravda article since I understand from Field-Marshal Montgomery that you said this was not your own view regarding the Treaty. It is certainly not my view either.
Since Pravda has published this misleading article, I have no alternative but to issue a statement which I should like you to see in advance, making the views of His Majesty’s Government clear once again on this subject. I propose to publish it on the morning of January 20.
On January 23, 1947, J. V. Stalin, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R., sent to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Great Britain the following message in reply, which was handed to Mr. Bevin by the Soviet Ambassador in London, G. N. Zarubin, on January 23:
I have received your message of January 18. I must admit that your statement that Great Britain is not tied to anybody except in regard to her obligations arising from the Charter caused me some perplexity.
It seems to me that such a statement without a corresponding explanation can be used by the enemies of Anglo-Soviet friendship. For one it is clear that no matter what reservations there are in the Anglo-Soviet Treaty, and no matter how these reservations weaken the significance of the Treaty in the post-war period, the existence of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty imposes obligations on our countries.
It was just these circumstances that I had in mind when I stated on September 17, 1946, in my interview with Mr. Alexander Werth, that “the Soviet Union is bound with Great Britain by the Treaty of Mutual Assistance against German aggression” and, that means, has obligations with regard to Great Britain, not counting the obligations arising from the Charter.
However, your message and the statement of the British Government completely explain the affair and do not leave any room for misunderstandings. It is now clear that you and I share the same view-point with regard to the Anglo-Soviet Treaty.
As regards the extension of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty, to which special reference is made in the British Government’s statement, I must say that if one is to speak seriously of such an extension, then, before extending this Treaty, it is necessary to change it, freeing it from the reservations which weaken this Treaty. Only after such a procedure would it be possible to talk seriously of an extension of the Treaty.
(Soviet News, 1947)
----------------
Stalin and Benes exchange messages
April, 1944
From President Benes to Marshal Stalin
At the moment when the victorious Red Army, and with it the Czechoslovak Brigade have reached the frontiers of our Republic I convey to you, as the Supreme Commander-in Chief and the representative of the People of the Soviet Union, on behalf of our people and of the Czechoslovak Government, and in my own name, the most cordial greetings.
By entering the territory of our homeland today, the Red Army is achieving a great new victory over our common foe, and is bringing our people freedom and the hope of a happier and secure future.
In this historic moment we not only remember all our ancient bonds of friendship, sealed anew by my recent journey to Moscow and the signature of our new Agreement, but also rejoice in the forecast of our collaboration in securing European peace together with the other Allies and for the good of our two countries.
Our common sufferings and our common struggle guarantee the durability of the bonds between us, both now and in the future.
We salute heartily and with gratitude the forces of the Red Army, which together with Czechoslovak soldiers, are entering the territory of our beloved Motherland.
From Marshal Stalin to President Benes
I thank you for the friendly greetings on the occasion of the Red Army’s successes when the Soviet Forces reached the frontier of Czechoslovakia.
I have no doubt that the common struggle of our nations against the common foe will lead in a short time to the restoration of the freedom and independence of the Czechoslovak Republic.
-----------------
Replies to Questions put by Mr. Hugh Baillie, President of the U. P. of America
October 28, 1946
The following answers were given by J. V. Stalin to questions put to him on October 23, 1946, by Mr. Hugh Baillie, President of the United Press of America:
1. Question: Do you agree with Secretary Byrnes’ feeling, as expressed in his radio speech last Friday (October 18th), that there is growing tension between the U.S.S.R. and the United States?
Answer: No.
2. Question: If such an increasing tension exists, could you indicate the reason, or reasons for it, and what are the most essential bases for eliminating it?
Answer: The question does not arise in view of my answer to the preceding question.
3. Question: Do you foresee that the present negotiations will result in peace treaties which will establish amicable relations among the nations which were allies in the war against Fascism, and remove the danger of war on the part of former Fascist sources?
Answer: I hope so.
4. Question: If not, what are the principal obstacles to the establishment of such amicable relations among the nations which were allies in the Great War?
Answer: The question does not arise in view of the answer to the preceding question.
5. Question: What is Russia’s attitude with regard to Yugoslavia’s decision not to sign the Peace Treaty with Italy
Answer: Yugoslavia has grounds to be dissatisfied.
6. Question: What, in your opinion, is to-day the worst threat to world peace?
Answer: The instigators of a new war, in the first place Churchill and people of like mind in Britain and the U.S.A.
7. Question: If such a threat should arise, what steps should be taken by the nations of the world to avoid a new war?
Answer: The instigators of a new war should be exposed and curbed.
8. Question: Is the United Nations Organisation a guarantee of the integrity of the small nations?
Answer: It is hard to say so far.
9. Question: Do you think that the four zones of occupation in Germany should in the near future be thrown together, so far as economic administration is concerned, with a view to restoring Germany as a peaceful economic unit and thus lessening the burden of occupation to the four powers?
Answer: Not only the economic but also the political unity of Germany should be restored.
10. Question: Do you feel that it is feasible at this time to create some sort of central administration to be placed in the hands of the Germans themselves, but under Allied control, which will make it possible for the Council of Foreign Ministers to draft a peace treaty for Germany?
Answer: Yes, I do.
11. Question: Do you feel confident, in the light of elections which have been held in the various zones this summer and fall that Germany is developing politically along democratic lines which give hope for its future as a peaceful nation?
Answer: So far I am not certain of it.
12. Question: Do you feel that, as has been suggested in some quarters, the level of permitted industry should be increased above the agreed level, to permit Germany to pay her own way more fully?
Answer: Yes, I do.
13. Question: What should be done beyond the present four-Power programme to prevent Germany from again becoming a world military menace?
Answer: The remnants of Fascism in Germany should be extirpated in fact and she should be democratised to the end.
14. Question: Should the German people be allowed to reconstruct their industry and trade and become self-supporting?
Answer: Yes, they should.
15. Question: Have the provisions of Potsdam, in your opinion, been adhered to? If not, what is needed to make the Potsdam Declaration an effective instrument?
Answer: They are not always adhered to, especially in the sphere of the democratisation of Germany.
16. Question: Do you feel the veto power has been used to excess during the discussions among the four Foreign Ministers and in meetings of the United Nations Council?
Answer: No, I do not.
17. Question: How far does the Kremlin feel the Allied Powers should go hunting down and trying minor war criminals in Germany? Does it feel that the Nuremberg decisions created a sufficiently strong basis for such action?
Answer: The farther they go the better.
18. Question: Does Russia consider the Western frontiers of Poland permanent?
Answer. Yes, she does.
19. Question: How does the U.S.S.R. regard the presence of British troops in Greece? Does it feel that Britain should supply more arms to the present Greek Government?
Answer: As unnecessary.
20. Question: What is the extent of Russian military contingents in Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Austria, and how long do you feel that, in the interests of securing peace, these contingents must be maintained?
Answer: In the West, that is in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, Rumania and Poland, the Soviet Union has at present in all 60 divisions (infantry and armour together). Most of them are below full complement. There are no Soviet troops in Yugoslavia. In two months, when the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of October 22 of this year on the last stage of demobilisation is put into effect, 40 Soviet divisions will remain in the above-mentioned countries.
21. Question: What is the attitude of the Government of the U.S.S.R. towards the presence of American warships in the Mediterranean?
Answer: Indifferent.
22. Question: What is the present outlook for a commercial agreement between Russia and Norway?
Answer: It is hard to tell, so far.
23. Question: Is it possible for Finland again to become a self-sufficient nation after reparations have been paid, and is there any idea in contemplation of revising the reparations programme so far as to expedite Finland’s recovery?
Answer: The question has been put in the wrong way. Finland has been and remains an entirely self-sufficient nation.
24. Question: What will trade agreements with Sweden and other countries mean with regard to reconstruction in the U.S.S.R.? What outside aid do you consider desirable in accomplishing this great task?
Answer: The agreement with Sweden constitutes a contribution to the cause of economic co-operation among the nations.
25. Question: Is Russia still interested in obtaining a loan from the United States?
Answer: She is interested.
26. Question: Has Russia developed its own atom bomb or any similar weapon.
Answer: No.
27. Question: What is your opinion of the atom bomb or similar weapon as an instrument of warfare?
Answer: I have already given my appraisal of the atom bomb in the well-known answer to Mr. Worth.
28. Question: How, in your opinion, can atomic power best be controlled? Should this control be created on an international basis, and to what extent should the powers sacrifice their sovereignty in the interest of making the control effective?
Answer: Strict international control is necessary.
29. Question: How long will it require to rebuild the devastated areas of Western Russia?
Answer: Six to seven years, if not more.
30. Question: Will Russia permit commercial airlines to operate across the Soviet Union? Does Russia intend to extend her own airlines to other continents on a reciprocal basis?
Answer: Under certain conditions this is not excluded.
31. Question: How does your Government view the occupation of Japan? Do you feel it has been a success on the present basis?
Answer: There are some successes, but better successes could have been obtained.
(Soviet News, 1947)