Since the death of Stalin the question has been raised of a possible or eventual evolution of Soviet external policy. Observers have pounced on all symptoms, collected all signs pointing to a real or imaginary "detente" in relations with the West. With a doubt, a certain change has been brought about at least in the forms of East-West relations since 1953 the initiative for which lies exclusively with the successors of Stalin. But it remains to be decided whether these new forms, these new aspects of Soviet foreign policy and diplomacy correspond to a basic revision of the Communist leadership's strategy of conquest. The conduct of the Western democracies towards the Soviet Union, and most important the orientation of American leadership, must depend obviously on the answer given to the problem thus defined.

Up until now this leadership has been carried out, during Stalin's time and following his disappearance, by a policy of holding the Soviet Union and its satellites in check by means of an armament without precedent, furnished essentially by the United States. The allied countries associated with this defense effort have limited themselves primarily to lending bases and mobilizing a small amount of men and material strength.

A demonstration of American force was in itself sufficient to counter and prevent any warlike Soviet enterprise. The only attempt to "probe" Washington's intentions, the Korean War, ended in a stalemate that Communist China has been able to interpret noisily as her stunning victory over American imperialism. Outside of this episode, the systematic hostility of Soviet power towards the free-world, and above all towards the United States, has been exercised on the political, intellectual and psychological levels - those of the "cold war".

During these past twelve years of extreme tension, the Western democracies have submitted to, without striking back, multiple assaults, perfidious manoeuvres and hate campaigns from the Soviet camp. Failing to understand the enemy with whom they are dealing and falsely supposing that an active resistance to the plans of this

enemy would run the risk of world conflict involving nuclear weapons, the allies have left the field of action free to Soviet initiative. Such timid measures as have been adopted by Washington (Voice of America bulletins and Embassy publications) to counter the debauchery of dishonest propaganda unleashed by Moscow and Peiping are so relatively small by comparison that it is better not even to mention them. In London, Paris and Rome, in this area, total passivity exists for want of leadership.

It is evident that the vain fear of a world nuclear conflagration has weighed heavily during some ten years on American conceptions of foreign policy. In fact, such a war was impossible from 1945 on, after the bombs had fallen on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as a few commentators tried, without success, to demonstrate at the beginning of the cold war. All the statesmen, diplomats, general staffs, secret services and newspapers of the free-world have been completely mistaken in attributing to Stalin and his followers "classical" warlike intentions. They will be equally mistaken if they attribute to Khrushchev and company "pacific" intentions in the habitual sense of the term.

It is a question of something entirely different than war and peace as previously experienced in history. In no case, will the communists undertake a war which would be equivalent to their suicide. In no case will they consent to a peace which would mean the restoration of a normal state of relations between peoples and nations. For such a peace would mean the abandonment of their "raison d'être". Nothing authorizes us to speculate on such a gratuitous hypothesis, hardly applicable to the generation formed under Stalin. The "peaceful coexistence" trumpeted in our days by the communists is the continuation of the war against the free-world by non-military means. The doctrinal texts published in Moscow make no mystery of this fact.

The Soviet leaders have known that the Americans would never initiate a

nuclear war, not only because their intelligence organizations are competent, but because there is no such a thing as a political secret in the United States where everything is spread out on the public square and where the naive lack of discretion of politicians and officials provokes neither reprobation nor sanction. On the other hand, official American circles have feared some Soviet reservation susceptible of provoking a nuclear war, not only because their intelligence services are practically non-existent in effectiveness on Soviet matters, but also because everything is secret in the Soviet Union and ignorance concerning communist matters prevails in the United States, outside of a few diplomats and professors who are ignored by the politicians. Now that armaments have attained a devastating capability on both sides which must inevitably prevent any possibility of an intercontinental war, the necessity of reconsidering the West's defense is immediately necessary.

Under the slogan of "peaceful coexistence" Khrushchev and company have deployed a campaign in the grand manner and on a planetary level. The counterpart is necessary - and it falls fatally to the United States to give a political and spiritual content to their leadership. The time of strictly military preparations having passed, the hour has struck of "moral and political sciences" - which are in no way incompatible with the technology and ballistics also indispensable in the face of Soviet material strength.

There are constants in communist conceptions of universal history and international relations. Despite the deceptions which followed the October revolution, despite the shocks endured by official dogmas, despite the economic mortifications and intestinal struggles engendered by Stalinism with their present-day by-products, the conviction persists in the higher echelons of the Soviet regime that Capitalism is dying and that "the socialist camp" must inevitably extend itself over the whole earth.

Forty years after their accession to power in Russia, the Communists admit that they have been somewhat mistaken concerning their prophecies of world revolution, but they console themselves with the conviction that they are still headed in the right direction. Having overcome all sorts of trials successfully, with the aid of those same capitalists whose death they have sworn, they can embrace excellent reasons for seeing themselves in the true "course of history", assured of final victory. The *American Relief* directed by Herbert Hoover, the YMCA and other charitable organizations, Christian or "bourgeois", helped them during famine. Large industrial firms of Europe and America assisted them in overcoming economic chaos and in carrying out their five-year plans. The United States and the British Empire saved them during the Nazi invasion. All of this they interpret as so many signs pointing to the irremediable decline of capitalism and the inevitable propagation of communism throughout the two hemispheres. At present they cynically discount the aid of American capital in carrying out their seven year plan, whose fulfillment they claim will sound the knell of capitalism.

At least instructed by experience, if a preliminary knowledge of the men and things of communism is lacking, the American government must henceforth understand that in its relations with the Soviet state, every gesture of good will, every act of generosity, of conciliation or cooperation, from the American side, is only viewed by Moscow as proof of weakness, blindness and decrepitude. Far from appeasing them, every concession made to the communists provokes their scorn, increases their demands and confirms them in their certainty of being the elected of history. It is necessary not to appear to be the dupes either of the enticing words or the menaces which the Soviet politicians alternate so freely.

In order to understand the intentions of the inheritors of Stalin, their fundamental conceptions in foreign policy, one must refer to the official texts which have the currency of dogma and are for internal use in Soviet society. They should

not be confused with diplomatic notes, or with the declarations and speeches
intended to seduce, trouble or fool the free nations, wherein only a minority of
specialists are capable of discerning that which is truth, that which is manoeuvre.
Neither should one ask at each moment whether in such and such a circumstance the
communist leaders are "sincere"; the question of sincerity does not present itself,
for it goes without saying that conquerors bereft of either principles or scrupules
desire "sincerely" everything which will facilitate their conquests.

The fact is that the true thought of the communist chiefs is expressed
in texts which have the force of law for their troops, and which are not given the
attention they merit by the governmental leaders and public opinion molders of the
democracies. While at the same time these Western rulers and opinion formers never
miss an occasion to comment on "the conciliatory tone" or "moderateness" of one or
another Krushchev utterance, as if this "tone" alternating with menaces, could in
any way modify the true facts of a situation, or change the conduct of irreconcil-
able adversaries. It is never-the-less clear, however, that the "tone" could not
keep mounting indefinitely crescendo without rendering all diplomacy impossible.
What counts are the exposes of principles which have been long matured, whose formulas
have been rigorously weighed and carefully edited in order to serve as imperative
instructions to the communist cadres who transmit them to the ranks and file.

The report of the Central Committee presented by Khrushchev to the 20th
Party Congress in 1956 is one of these texts which have authority, and which one
must continue to refer to because the 21st Congress in 1959 dealt only with economic
problems of the seven year plan and did not revise the position of the previous
congress concerning international politics. A very recent document, the new "History
of the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R." published in 1959, the true Bible of the
Soviet World, conforms the views proclaimed by Khrushchev. Still more recently,
the official publications of the Party in Moscow have made explicit the content of
the notion of "peaceful coexistence" in order to guard against the risks of deviation

-7-

From 1914 to 1955 military expenses "have been multiplied over 70 times" in the United States where there exist "3 million unemployed and over 9 million partially unemployed".

The United States "follows a policy of reducing by all means possible sown acreage in order to diminish harvests while in South-East Asia and Africa millions of men go hungry". The principal productive countries "are dissatisfied with the United States because the latter disorganizes world markets through practicing one way commerce... dumping agricultural products..."etc.

"British-American antagonism is evident in a number of problems. Under the banner of the Atlantic Community, Americans seize key economic and strategic positions...Therefore there is nothing astonishing in the fact that in England as in France the desire increases to terminate a condition under which the Atlantic Community is profitable to only one partner." (Passage which clarifies Moscow's tactic towards France and England).

The capitalist countries have adopted "ferocious" anti-labor legislation - arbitration is imposed in disputes, union rights are limited, strikes suppressed. Between capitalist states, the struggle "for outlets and spheres of influence" becomes ever more venimous. Thus capitalism approaches "new economic and social upheavals".

In the United States as in England and France "reactionary, militarist circles "dominate political life. Their inclinations are in favor of "application of force". They aspire to world domination, to "the repression of workers, democratic and national liberation movements", and to "military adventures against the socialist camp". They have created a war psychosis, empoisoned the international atmosphere, initiated the "cold war" and formed military blocs and aggressive groupings against "the will of the peoples". The United States wishes"to assure itself of a dominating position in the capitalist world and reduce all its partners to the role of docile tools".

As a contrast, the relations of solidarity between the Soviet Union, China

-8-

and their satellites become ever stronger; "the international camp of socialism exerts a growing influence" in the world; a "vast zone of peace" is being constituted which includes "the peace loving states of Europe and Asia". Despite the Americans,"the immense majority of humanity rejects the policy of 'situations of force'...which aggravate the dangers of war". And, more and more,"leading personalities in the bourgeois countries...must openly admit that the socialist camp is invincible".

The United States "seeks to seize the colonial possessions of the European powers". Southern Vietnam "is passing into the hands of the United States". Elsewhere,"American monopolies wage an offensive against the French, Belgian and Portuguese possessions in Africa". The petroleum riches of Iran belonged formerly to the English who "today are forced to divide them with the Americans"; a struggle "is already in progress to achieve the total eviction of the English in favor of the American monopolists". American enterprise is penetrating Pakistan "under the banner of free-enterprise". In Latin America, "the American monopolists have attached heavy chains of economic dependence".

The aid offered by the United States to the underdeveloped countries "permits the American monopolists to keep their industry going thanks to military orders". This aid "has the effect of raising taxes" in the underdeveloped countries "and lowering the standard of living of the population". The monopolists are interested in a continuation of the cold war "in order to justify increased taxes which pay for armaments orders and end up in the pockets of millionaires."

American foreign policy "leads to world domination or, according to the expression of the American imperialists themselves, to world management". Khrushchev regrets the plight of France "whose fate is to be reduced to the rank of a third rate power as a result of such a policy". He envisages "a new type of Washington-Bonn axis emerging evermore clearly, accentuating the danger of war." However, he declares,

after so many such amenties, "we wish to be friends with the United States and to cooperate with them in the struggle for peace and the security of the peoples of the world."

In the United States, he continues, "the position of those who favor the solution of unresolved problems by means of force remains a strong one and these advocates continue to exert strong pressure on the President and the government."

Great Britain and France have many interests in common with the U.S.S.R., notably the desire "to prevent a new war." And Khrushchev adds, aiming at the United States: "We consider that the U.S.S.R., England and France, as great European powers, must religiously watch over the precious possession which is peace, doing all in their power to prevent a new war" - in other words, to oppose American policies.

Such is the substance of the soviet doctrine elaborated by Khrushchev in support of "peaceful coexistence". It remains in force equally today. It is in no way basically different from the theories of Stalin in this area, not even in the clumsy allusions to England and France whose interests "should" oppose the evil projects of the United States, not even in the sudden invitation to Soviet-American friendship, strange conclusion to a vitriolic accusation. Thus the "Manchester Guardian" ironically thanked Khrushchev "for having written the obituary of capitalism and at the same time delivered the funeral oration". But, contrary to what is thought by British liberals and others, the Soviet doctrine in this respect is hardly platonic, rather it guides a deadly, unrelenting and varied plan of action.

Khrushchev's report translates the conceptions and betrays the hostile communist intentions towards the United States, but under a form as "noble" as the communists are capable of. Transposed on the level of daily propaganda, the result is the uglier type of polemics, the most perfidious and violent attacks. The

-10-

communist press of all countries is full of this permanent falsehood, heightened
by unremitting hate. The weekly illustrated supplement of "Pravda" has never
ceased depicting Americans as gangsters, spies, saboteurs and monsters, armed with
bombs, daggers, revolvers and pockets overflowing with dollars. When diplomatic
reasons suggest the desirability of a let-up in diatribes aimed at the Washington
administration, then it is "the imperialist circles", the "militaristic circles"
of the United States which are accused of the worst crimes and provocations lead-
ing to atomic war. Accusations as vague as they are enraged in tone, no one speci-
fically being named, but the whole American collectivity being pointed at by implica-
tion.

An all too common error consists in a tendency to view this furious and
systematic vilification as merely an evidence of bad temper, without any consequence
or effect. In truth, it is rather a question of maintaining a constant high pitch
of moral, political and intellectual opposition between two worlds with different
economic and social regimes. The indoctrination of the various classes of the
pseudo-socialist society is carried out by means appropriate to each in order to
cultivate a militant hostility towards America and to propagate this hate in the
East and in the West. Soviet encyclopedias and dictionaries, history books and
pedagogical manuals educate the whole population in a sentiment of scorn and disgust
for everything that is American. The Academy of Science, the Society for Diffusion
of Scientific Knowledge, the State publishing houses, etc., all, serve this intense
propaganda objective, under Khrushchev as under Stalin.

In order to be convinced, it is necessary only to examine some fifty books
and brochures published up until 1953, year of Stalin's death, and then another
fifty edited from 1953 up to the present time, all distributed by the Academy of
Science or under the other aforementioned aegises. Some of the significant titles
(on occasion abridged) show the conceit of the subjects treated. All aspects of
American life are denounced before the conscience of public opinion.

-11-

Until 1953:

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>"Theory of 'Races' and Racial Discrimination".</td>
      <td>1947</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Penetration of the USA in Africa".</td>
      <td>1947</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Bourgeois Cinema in the Service of Reaction".</td>
      <td>1948</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"American Justice in the Service of Monopolistic Capital".</td>
      <td>1948</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Aggressive Plans of American Imperialism".</td>
      <td>1949</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Aggressive Policies of American Imperialism in Japan".</td>
      <td>1949</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The American Press in the Service of the Monopolies".</td>
      <td>1949</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Clericalism - Instrument of American Capitalism".</td>
      <td>1949</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Reactionnary Basis of the 'World-Theory' of the Anglo-Saxon Tongue".</td>
      <td>1949</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The American Way of Life".</td>
      <td>1949</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Nazification of Political Life in the USA".</td>
      <td>1950</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Bacteriological Warfare - Criminal Arm of Imperialist Aggression".</td>
      <td>1950</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Marshall Plan and the Ruin of the European Economy".</td>
      <td>1950</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Lynch Law - Arm of American Reaction".</td>
      <td>1950</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Against the Philosophers of American Imperialism".</td>
      <td>1951</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Fiasco of American Plans for World Domination, 1917-1920".</td>
      <td>1951</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The American Imperialists: Most Dangerous Enemies of Peace, Democracy and Socialism".</td>
      <td>1951</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Bourgeois Geography in the Service of American Imperialism".</td>
      <td>1951</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Bourgeois Morality-Weapon of Imperialist Reaction".</td>
      <td>1951</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"American Justice - Weapon of Reaction and Terror".</td>
      <td>1951</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Adventurous Strategy of American Imperialism".</td>
      <td>1951</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"American Imperialism - A Parasite and Robber".</td>
      <td>1951</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"American Bourgeois Philosophy and Sociology in the Service of Imperialism".</td>
      <td>1951</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"American Justice - Instrument of Imperialist Reaction".</td>
      <td>1951</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"A History of American Aggression in China".</td>
      <td>1951</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

-12-

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>"From Hitler to Truman".</td>
      <td>1951</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Expansion of American Imperialism in Mexico".</td>
      <td>1952</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Bourgeois Theatre in the Service of Imperialist Reaction".</td>
      <td>1952</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Bloody American Imperialism".</td>
      <td>1952</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Cloak and Dagger Diplomats".</td>
      <td>1952</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Ideologists of Bourgeois Imperialism - Apostles of Aggression and War".</td>
      <td>1952</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The USA - Active Organisers of Armed Intervention Against Soviet Russia".</td>
      <td>1952</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"U.S. Politics in the Far East".</td>
      <td>1952</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Bourgeois American Sociology in the Service of Expansionism".</td>
      <td>1952</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Turkey - Patrimony of Wall Street".</td>
      <td>1952</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Fascist Geopolitics in the Service of American Imperialism".</td>
      <td>1952</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The USA - Organizers of the Munich Pact with the Fascist Aggressors".</td>
      <td>1952</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2">Since 1953:</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Monstruous Crimes of the American Aggressors in Korea".</td>
      <td>1953</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Unemployment in the USA after the Second World War".</td>
      <td>1953</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Neo-Malthusianism - Ideology of Imperialist Reaction".</td>
      <td>1953</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Fiasco of American Armed Intervention in China".</td>
      <td>1953</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The American Bourgeois Economists - Apologists of Imperiatist Reaction and Aggression".</td>
      <td>1953</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The American-Japanese Intervention in the Soviet Far-East and its Frustration".</td>
      <td>1953</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Rapacity of American Colonists".</td>
      <td>1953</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"American Newspapers in the Service of Wall Street".</td>
      <td>1953</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"American 'Personalism' - Philosophy of Imperialist Reaction".</td>
      <td>1954</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Bourgeois Culture in the Service of Imperialist Reaction".</td>
      <td>1954</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Imperialist Expansion in Latin America by the United States".</td>
      <td>1954</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Expansion in Iran by the American Imperialists".</td>
      <td>1954</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

-13-

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>"Organized Crime in the USA in the Service of the Monopolies".</td>
      <td>1954</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Racist Policy of American Imperialism".</td>
      <td>1954</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Reactionary Basis of Criminal Law in the USA".</td>
      <td>1954</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Atomic Problems and the American Policy of Force".</td>
      <td>1955</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Spanish-American War".</td>
      <td>1956</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"American Imperialism in Iran".</td>
      <td>1956</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"American Policy in China During the Revolution".</td>
      <td>1956</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Capitalist Press in the USA".</td>
      <td>1956</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Motion Pictures and the Monopolies in the USA".</td>
      <td>1956</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Contemporary Bourgeois Philosophy in the USA".</td>
      <td>1957</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"American and Japanese Intervention in the Soviet Far-East and its Debacle".</td>
      <td>1957</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Those Who Oppose Peace".</td>
      <td>1957</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The American Policy of 'Non-Intervention' and Japanese Aggression in China".</td>
      <td>1957</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Aggressive Blocs - Menace of Peace".</td>
      <td>1957</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"American Imperialism in Saudi-Arabia".</td>
      <td>1957</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Sociology of Hate for Man".</td>
      <td>1957</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Reactionary Basis of the American Policy of Liberation".</td>
      <td>1957</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Eisenhower Doctrine".</td>
      <td>1957</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Republican Party in Power".</td>
      <td>1958</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Beginning of American Expansion".</td>
      <td>1958</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Colonial Policy of the United States Following the Second World War".</td>
      <td>1958</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"American Policy Towards Communist China".</td>
      <td>1958</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The Crisis of the American Spirit".</td>
      <td>1958</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"American Intervention in China and its Defeat".</td>
      <td>1958</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"Towards the Liquidation of American Bases".</td>
      <td>1959</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The United States and Nazi Germany".</td>
      <td>1959</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>"The America of Those Who Are 20 Years Old".</td>
      <td>1959</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

These are only summary lists, samples of the empoisoned literature which intoxicates the Soviet reader. More complete, they would include hundreds of titles (The Collection of the Institute of Social History is continually weakened since 1959 due to a lack of resources). But an examination of the most recent edition of the "History of the Communist Party of the USSR", bedside reading for every Communist, clearly demonstrates that the basic hostility towards the United States has not changed and will remain in force for the foreseeable future. The official explanations of the "ideological struggle" which must be carried on under the cover of "peaceful coexistence" confirm this fact beyond any possible doubt.

The Party Bible, printed in millions of examples, and about to be translated into all languages, does not limit itself merely to the falsification of the history of the Soviet Communist Party but also takes up the subject of international relations and their course since the October Revolution.

It begins with an accusation of "brigandage" against the United States for its activities against the Soviet regime beginning in 1917 and in conjunction with Japan (p.275). In reality, it was the United States which forced Japan to evacuate Siberia, episode which the Communists appropriate to themselves as their own victory. And, during the negotiations of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk it was President Wilson who made a great public declaration favorable to the Bolsheviks on January 8, 1918, a speech which the communist historians have taken care never to cite or mention.

The *de jure* recognition of the USSR by the USA in 1933 is interpreted (p.454) as an admission of the bankruptcy of the previous American policy and as a reaction of fear in the face of possible German and Japanese aggression, with the concomitant desire to seek Soviet help. Furthermore, it is stated that America had need of the Soviet market in order to alleviate its own economic crisis. President Roosevelt's name is not even mentioned in connection with the latter.

-15-

The coalition of capitalist countries with a socialist country against Hitler is explained (p.528) by the fact that the United States and England, unable themselves to stem the German tide, considered it advantageous to utilize the only real force capable of stopping the Germans, i.e. the Soviet Union. But, "The American and English imperialists never ceased to be the enemies of socialism...they speculat-ed on the possibility of the mutual exhaustion of both Soviet Russia and Germany during the course of the war". At this point the book accuses Harry Truman of having dropped a phrase in 1941 wherein both totalitarian countries were equally excoriated (4 years before he became President).

No mention is made of the enormous aid given the Soviet Union by the United States during the war (and by Great Britain). On the contrary, the book asserts that the ruling Anglo-American circles "did not wish to have German fascism totally defeated" - above all they desired to merely "remove German and Japanese competition in world markets".

Against the camp of peace and socialism is opposed "the reactionnary imperialist camp with the United States at its head. To this group have adhered all the reactionnary classes, all the anti-democratic forces of the other capitalist countries"(p.585). The objective of the latter is "to crush the communist movement, break all the peoples' will to national independence and restore the capitalist system in China, in the Popular Democracies and in the Soviet Union."

The American ruling circles, aiming for world domination declare openly that their objectives can only be achieved by "opsitions of force". They have unleashed "the cold war". They hoped to "set the fire of a third world war". They created the "aggressive military bloc of NATO". They divided Germany, prevented its reunification and created a hot-bed of war danger there. Similarly, in Japan. In 1950, America turned to overt aggression in the Far East, occupying Taiwan, attacking the Korean people who were aided by "Chinese volunteers" and threatening China herself. "America undertook a frenetic armaments race, and increased the production of weapons of mass destruction - atomic, thermonuclear, bacterio-

-16-

logical, and others", etc. Briefly, with their military bases throughout the world, the Americans "increased the danger of a third world war in which weapons of mass destruction would be used" (pp. 585-586).

More recently, "imperialist, reactionist circles, principally in the United States, organised the counter-revolutionary insurrection in Hungary" (p.623). Thus the abstention by America and the West from intervention during the spontaneous uprising of Hungarian workers and students in no way spares the United States from the most false and deadly accusations, a fact which should destroy the illusion that conciliation of the Communists can be achieved by means of prudence and appeasement.

The passage concerning the war against Japan deserves special attention, because it indicates Moscow's long-term intention to neutralize that country and, if possible, win it over to the so-called "camp of socialism and peace":

"Fulfilling its obligations of an ally and desirous of putting an end to the sufferings of the Chinese people as well as those of other Far Eastern peoples which had been brought about by Japanese aggression, and desirous of saving the Japanese people from the disastrous consequences of the war, the Soviet Union declared war on Imperialist Japan on August 8,1945. It was a question of assuring the security of the Soviet State in the Far East, helping the Chinese people in their struggle with the Japanese occupiers and ending the second world war as rapidly as possible.

"On the 9th of August Soviet troops took the offensive against Manchuria... The People's Republic of Mongolia joined the Soviet Union in the war against imperialist Japan. The People's Liberation Army of China, led by the communists, undertook an offensive against the Japanese invaders. In 11 days, from August 9 to 19, the Red Army destroyed the principal shock forces of Japan - the Kwantung Army. The Soviet troops chased the Japanese from the Chinese regions of the Northeast (Manchuria), from the cities of Dairen and Port Arthur, from the southern part of Sakhalin Island

-17-

which had belonged to Russia for a long time, from the Karile Islands, and from North Korea.

"At the beginning of the war against Japan, on the 6th and 9th of August, the American Air Force dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The use of atomic weapons against a peaceful population was in no way motivated by any military necessity. This act could not, and did not, exercise a decisive influence on the outcome of the war. The rapid ending of the war in the Far East, due not to the use of atomic weapons against a peaceful population by the USA, but due to the destruction by the Red Army of Japan's principal armed forces in Manchuria."

This text is very important; it contains the program of action and propaganda which the Communists intend to follow during the coming years in the Far-East. Principle themes: the Soviet Union is irreproachable, irresistible, invincible; in 11 days the Soviet Union defeated Japan; Soviet Russia acts in the interest of the Japanese people just as she acts in the interest of the Chinese and all peoples in sheltering them from war; the United States have done nothing but massacre peaceful civilians. Implicit conclusion - which Soviet diplomats and agents are charged with developing with the aid of communist and "progressive" parties - the peoples of the Far East have every interest to turn away from the United States and associate themselves with the Soviet Union.

To shrug one's shoulders in front of the avowed objectives demonstrated in this book, objectives already being carried out, under the pretext that such statements are patently false and must be rejected by common sense, is to demonstrate ignorance and misunderstanding of the intentional evil of which the communist are capable. As Hitler said, "The bigger the lie, the better its chances of being believed". One should not shut one's eyes to the profound significance of "The History of the Communist Party", a true summation and compendium of Communist theory and practice

both for the present and near future. It must be taken seriously, just as the West should have seriously studied Hitler's plans in "Mein Kampf", unless the West desires to carry appeasement to the point where it becomes a tendency towards suicide.

The basic significance of "The History" is that the successors of Stalin have neither changed their aims, nor their methods, nor their manners, and that the United States remains for the Soviet the principal enemy which must be denigrated, vilified, discredited and isolated as much as possible until the United States can be conquered by other methods than a direct, frontal attack. And when the Soviets define "peaceful coexistence" for their own followers who are in need of directives, they do so by underlining the permanence and the necessity of an implacable cold war to which they apply the pseudonym "ideological struggle". In this connection the editorials in *Pravda* and *Kommunist* during December 1959 and January 1960, should be noted, as well as the article by L. Ilitchev in "The New International Review" published by Moscow in 22 countries and 19 languages.

Under the caption of "peaceful coexistence and Ideological Struggle", Ilitchev, Chief of the propaganda section of the Central Committee, writes in the November issue that "the trip of Nikita Khrushchev to the United States has taken on the character of a historical event of immense importance for our century". An event which an intense communist campaign, without precedent, depicts as a Trefolgar and Waterloo inflicted upon the United States.

"The march of history is eloquent, its laws are pitiless", continues Ilitchev, for whom history "has arrived at a stage where that part of the world remaining under the iron heel of capitalism is continually diminishing". The visit of Khrushchev "has brought an enormous aid to the communist parties in achieving the victory of socialism over capitalism." Vainly the Americans seek for "a way out which would permit them if not to halt, at least to break the march of progress...a means of canalizing history in some way in order that

-19-

capitalism may conceive some hope of survival."

In this death-sentence of capitalism, Washington would be ill-advised to see merely an inoffensive literary exercise. To correspond with the Communist phrases are deployed a formidable array of material means together with a technique of infiltration, penetration, corruption and subversion which it would be deplorable to underestimate. Above all, one must always have in mind the particularity of bad faith which always characterizes the Communist game, a tactic which recognizes no "fair play". It is in this sense that Ilitchev dares to claim that the West "conceives the equality of the two ideologies only in one way terms, taking place only in the socialist countries". He has the audacity to write that in capitalist countries "all the means of propaganda (press, radio, television, publishing movies) are in the hands of the imperialists". According to him, "to hermetically close the gates of the capitalist countries to communist ideas while spreading calumnies and casts-offs of pseudo-culture in the socialist countries while at the same time stimulating hate between peoples - this is the ideal of the bourgeois propagandists".

Ilitchev is only repeating here Khrushchev concerning the impossibility of expressing communist ideas in capitalist countries. But it is the Soviet Union which for some forty years has kept out any foreign idea, any non-conformist piece of writing. In the free world communist newspapers and magazines sprout up everywhere. The magazine which publishes the Ilitchev article in 19 languages has distribution outlets in 22 countries. Paris counts no less than a dozen Communist publishing houses, without mentioning the Soviet Russian book stores, and the principal "bourgeois" publishing houses vie for the honor of editing the works of Khrushchev and other communists. The population of the entire world is inundated by Soviet propaganda.

The American press publishes Khrushchev unremittingly: interviews, declarations, diplomatic notes, speeches, reports, remarks of any sort. The New York Times gave priority coverage to two interminable interviews with Mr. K. The Hearst chain

-20-

of newspapers diffused a long interview given to Mr. Hearst, Jr. The United Press and Associated Press agencies follow the same policy. The Columbia Broadcasting System presented Khrushchev on television and - another speech. Mrs. Roosevelt, Adlai Stevenson, Senator Humphrey, ex-Governor Harriman, Walter Lippman and heaven knows how many others have interrogated Mr. K., then piously have carried back his replies to be reprinted in innumerable pages of type.

Other copious interviews are accorded to "The Daily Express", "Figaro", "The Toronto Telegram", "The Grand Rapids Herald", to Japanese, Egyptian and Brazilian newspapers, without mentioning the communist press in the free world, or the press conferences etc. which appear everywhere. In "Foreign Affairs" it has been possible to read an 18 page article by Khrushchev, subsequently reprinted in entirety by "The New York Times". "The Philadelphia Inquirer" published with much publicity "Nikita Khrushchev's Blueprint for the Future", running for several days under enormous headlines. All of this is translated, retranslated, published and republished throughout the world. In France, on the eve of Khrushchev's expected visit, a half-dozen volumes "by" and "on" Khrushchev are offered to the public by means of a noisy advertising campaign.

One would need pages and pages in order to mention only briefly the multitudinous publications which throughout the world vaunt the promises and achievements of the communists. But for Ilitch, this adds up to "hermetically sealing off the capitalist countries from communist ideas". One cannot imagine a better demonstration of bad faith and hypocrisy, of a type which makes all agreement and compromise impossible. Not a word from the Soviet side merits the least credence. Everytime they change their tone or vocabulary they do so only in order to advance better towards their final goal. This is what a number of governments in Europe and America have failed to understand up to now.

*

*

*

Ilitch, now quoting, now paraphrasing Khrushchev, goes on to demonstrate that "peaceful coexistence" is compatible with "ideological struggle", and

-21-

even implies the latter: "To think that peaceful coexistence excludes struggle is to fail to understand the laws of socialist evolution...there can no more be peaceful coexistence between ideologies than can there be a reconciliation between light and darkness". In his conclusion, the spokesman of Moscow concludes: "The capitalist order will perish because it is condemned by History."

It follows, therefore, that one must carefully keep in mind the means which the Soviets use to carry on "the ideological struggle"; how the Communist light is intended to conquer the capitalist darkness; and why the Soviet Union, with the aid of China and the other satellite countries, is going to so much trouble to liquidate the capitalist order which is already supposedly "condemned by History". Khrushchev and Ilitchev proclaim the inexorable character of the "ideological struggle" whose end result must be the certain death of capitalism, but at the same time they name this struggle "peaceful coexistence", because it does not involve the use of nuclear weapons. However, every struggle demands the use of certain processes, of certain techniques. What do these involve in the case of the Communists?

One must read the acts, not merely the words, of the champions of "ideological struggle", which Washington, Paris and London frequently forget to do. Many and many a time the chiefs of the allied governments together with leading Western diplomats have thought it opportune to note that the tone of a Stalin or a Khrushchev was less harsh, or more amenable, or less provoking than previously. Each time they deceived themselves through confusing form with substance. The Communists have never varied in their aggressive intentions. They have from time to time temporized, minced, softened their tone, maneuvering according to the circumstances, but they have never renounced the essential of their strategic plans. Therefore, through reviewing their past and present acts one may have a good idea of their future courses of action.

The non-nuclear arms of the "ideological struggle" are particularly falsehood, calomny, intrigue, provocation, espionage, intimidation, demagogy, imposture,

-22-

(Y)

black-mail, nationalism fanaticism exploitation of misfortunes, manipulation of
egoistical interests and the bribery of consciences. It is precisely these weapons
that are not used by the United States and their Western allies with the result that
the so-called "ideological struggle" takes place in a one-way direction, giving to
the Soviets all the advantages of initiative, aggressiveness and lack of scruple.
Sooner or later the Democracies will be forced to abandon their position of passive
defence in the face of this aggressiveness, an aggressiveness stimulated on the
Soviet side by their previous successes coupled with their conviction that they are
moving along History's path. Then the question of American leadership will be posed,
a leadership which the United States until today has assumed more in theory than in
practice.

It must be agreed that civilized nations can not consider lowering themselves to the level of imitating the retrograde morality of the communists, can not consider using the same tactics and means. This fact, however, does not in itself prevent the West from putting up an effective resistance. No country can allow itself to refuse to produce or to employ weapons which correspond to those which may be used by an eventual enemy unless it wishes to acknowledge itself defeated in advance. Even if one must refuse to counter certain communist methods, a cruel necessity obliges us to protect ourselves by other means than simple disdain or sermons. Experience has proved that every energetic stand by the United States, stripped of phraseology, in front of a direct Soviet menace, has had a positive effect and has obviated the necessity of a recourse to force. This has been seen in the crises of Greece, Turkey, Iran and Formosa. The Korean war would not have taken place if American diplomacy had not beforehand implied a vague and doubtful American policy. These lessons are equally valid for the present "ideological struggle", undertaken by Khrushchev as a sequel to the cold war.

A true American leadership was perhaps difficult to conceive as long as
Washington labored under the illusory fear of a possible atomic war, but as soon

as this illusion is removed, the field is open to a freer exercise of imagination and willpower on the part of the United States. And another foreign policy becomes possible, different from the debonair empiricism which presently prevails under Eisenhower. There was a time when the United States inspired a great respect among the Soviet leaders; this was before official recognition of the communist regime. Following this act, and after Stalin had violated all his engagements and agreements concluded with Roosevelt, communist disdain replaced their previous respect and became a habit. During the World War, Stalin was forced on a number of occasions to pay homage to American democracy whose material aid was indispensable to him. But immediately following the armistice, he surprised the Americans by again taking up a hostile attitude, renouncing the principles of the Atlantic Charter and tearing up the accords of Teheran and Yalta; sabotaging the United Nations, denouncing the Marshall Plan and beginning the cold war.

Khrushchev continues Stalin's work in another style and with certain new manners. He employs falsehood exactly as his former master while at the same time adapting himself to present conditions of scientific progress and the changed equilibrium of forces. He contradicts himself from one minute to the other without the slightest concern, now threatening to blow up the entire planet while at the same time complaining of an illusory German menace, in itself insignificant. At another moment it is the minute State of Israel which apparently prevents him from sleeping. The explanation of such conduct is basic: the communists have an absolute necessity of enemies, real or imaginary, who may be blamed for all conceivable evils and difficulties in order to justify the existence of the Soviet totalitarian system. Since the defeat of Nazi-Germany and Japan, the United States remains the only "enemy" capable of really standing up to the Soviet Union. If this American enemy did not exist, they would have to invent it in any case. The same phenomenon is visible concerning communist China which creates out of whole cloth ridiculous conflicts on its frontiers while at home grave economic and other problems pose difficulties.

Totalitarian powers can not avoid continually confronting "exterior dangers" by their very nature, or in their absence, by pretending to confront such dangers.

Even at the present time when, momentarily, Khrushchev dampens his anti-American campaign in order not to compromise his opportunities at the Summit Conference, the Soviet press and Soviet propaganda in general continue to berate the "imperialist circles", the "militarist circles", the "aggressivecleeks" - anonymous enemies whose absence would deprive the Soviet system of an indispensable support. Obviously, Chancellor Adensuer and "circles" seeking German revenge" do not constitute a false menace which can be made sufficiently convincing. Incapable at the moment of clarifying exactly who are these "groups", "circles" and "elements", the communists are aiming actually at the United States. At such moments, it is sufficient to review the caricatures in the Soviet press to understand their meaning.

The cultural exchanges envisaged by Moscow are part of their "ideological struggle", therefore part of "peaceful coexistence" and at the same time part of the cold war. But the moment cultural exchanges pass from the level of inoffensive musicians and dancers, or professors of mathematics, the "exchanges" turn into a vicious quarrel and "bourgeois" ideas are prevented from crossing the iron curtain. As an example, the case of professor W.W. Rostow of M.I.T., whose purely historical thesis on The Economic Growth of Nations had been published by "The Economist" on August 15 and 22, 1959. G. Joukov, Soviet director of cultural relations, replied in "Pravda" in an article full of gross insults which were in due course reprinted in "The Economist" of November 7. Mr. Rostow tried to reply by a very courteous letter, but "Pravda" refused to print it ("The Economist" Feb.6, 1960). Thus the Soviet reader is in complete ignorance concerning the analysis and argumentation of the distinguished American professor while the ridiculous diatribe of Joukov circulates in the West without obstacle. Such "cultural exchanges", only serve to further increase Soviet scorn of the bourgeois West.

-25-

The communists frequently invoke Marx and Engels in order to give the impression of having intellectual ancestors, but in reality they are guided more by the formulas of Lenin and Stalin which they have learned by heart - Lenin for doctrine (even when anachronistic), Stalin above all for practice. They are therefore imbued with concepts such as this one, of Lenin: "History shows us that peace is merely a truce for war, war is a means for obtaining a peace which may be somewhat better or somewhat worse". Therefore, for the communists, since the use of nuclear weapons would destroy their regime, war must simply change its form.

Communism also turns to its profit another observation of Lenin which, for the most part, guides their global strategy and their local tactics. "We have many enemies, but they are disunited, or they do not know what they wish...". An obvious truth and precious warning which should be reflected upon by the stateman of the West whose failure to draw the proper consequences from this guiding Soviet principle explain many lost occasions for effectively countering Soviet imperialist aggression.

Stalin left to his disciples a teaching which they use to great advantage against the confused West. Speaking about "a very original characteristic of revolutionary tactics", Stalin gave the following definition: "This characteristic consists in the following, that every step, or almost every step of its offensive is carried out under the pretext of defense ... the revolution camouflages by this means its offensive action under the mask of defense in order to attract more easily into its orbit hesitating and indecisive elements."

These words are from a context which treats a particular phase of revolution, but they lose nothing of their significance when applied to the present situation, which is equally true of the following commentary: "What I have said before explains the apparently inoffensive character of the articles, speeches and directives of that period, in reality they never-the-less express a profoundly offensive character".

The above provides a key which remains eternally valuable for a proper evaluation of Soviet foreign policy at those times when it seems enigmatical to

Western polititians and diplomats or to orientals of Nehru's type of thinking.
When the communists accuse imaginary American "warmongers", they are covering their
own aggressive intentions. When they talk of a relaxation on the international scene
they dissimulate their own preparations for future conflicts. When they speak of peace,
they think of war, not of an atomic war which would be fatal to them, but of the
"ideological struggle" in which they continue to use all those methods and tactics
which Western morality rejects. A true relaxation would consist in Moscow no longer
interfering in the internal affairs of other nations; but the communists have never
carried out this promise when it was inscribed in treaties or nonaggression pacts
which they signed nor have they ever renounced their work of subversion in countries
which have permitted such activities to be carried on.

Furthermore, the communists have never failed to violate all the accords,
pacts and treaties signed by them since they rose to power. In 1955, a study of the
Senate Sub-committee on Internal Security in Washington established that the Soviet
Union " had broken its word to virtually every country to which it ever gave a signed
promise", after the Committee had examined some 1,000 treaties carrying the Soviet
signature. (See on this point: "Soviet Political Treaties and Violations", Washington,
1955; and : "Soviet Political Agreements and Results", Washington 1956; U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office). Thus President Truman rightly declared in 1951 that the treaties
signed by Moscow were not worth the paper on which they were printed. This remains
true in 1960 and the only question posed at the present time is why the Republican
party which directs the policy of the United States still appears willing to have
confidence on any point with respect to such traitorous enemies.

At the same time the communists do not hide what they think of the Eisenhower
administration, as for example in the article by Valentin Zorin: "The American Republican
Party in Power" (Moscow State Publishing House, 1958), a violent diatribe against those
same statesmen who have been making so many friendly advances to Moscow. The Republican
leaders are accused of being under the orders of the monopolies, of empoverishing the

-28-

A certain slow evolution appears to be taking place in the Soviet Union since the death of Stalin and it could be accelerated by a course of Western policy which is more perspicacious. The policies of Khrushchev continue Stalinist marxism-leninism, but it becomes progressively differentiated by the means used to apply the latter; the process of transformation could be influenced if American political thought raised itself to the level of American industrial technology and if American public and private initiative was willing to get down into the arena of "ideological struggle". Such a shift of policy would have a happy and contagious effect among the democratic countries and would be a profitable policy, in the best sense of the word, in that part of the world which is dominated by communist parties.

From everything that precedes it, follows that antagonism remains constant between the champions of totalitarianism and those of liberalism, between the Soviet Union and the United States each of which incarnate these two systems, no matter what variation of forms and phrases this antagonism passes through. The hopeful attitude adopted up to the present time by the United States has only produced negative results. To break with the present sterile routine would open a new horizon to the people of the world who vaguely hope for salvation without knowing from where it will come, nor how relations between the East and the West can develop into a more normal course.

The preliminary condition to any change of policy worthy of the United States is to renounce illusion and to no longer be a party to ignorance, or at least to refuse to continue to conduct oneself as if ignorance prevailed in the White House. Having a good conscience is not sufficient to create a good policy. When, as an example America repudiates colonialism, they do not by this stand disarm the communists who continue to vituperate against "American colonialism" as Khrushchev has just done in Indonesia (February 1950). A book such as "The Colonial Policy of the United States Since World War II", (Moscow, December, 1958) must be taken seriously because it represents Soviet policy and serves to instruct the leading elements of the Soviet State. This book as well as many others would demonstrate to the Americans the point

to which they committed an error at the time of Suez when they believed they could conciliate the Soviet Union (the same point is proved by Anthony Eden, a liberal and conservative, in his memoirs).

If the United States is becoming weary of preparing eternally for a nuclear war which will not take place, they must at the same time effectively come to grips with communism in the "ideological struggle" and as a result "think" this struggle in order to wage it on the intellectual, political and diplomatic plane. This implies a fundamental revision of notions which in the past, as in the present, have been considered untouchable and unchangeable. There is no reason for continuing outmoded habits merely because of the pretext that America is a democracy where one has already acted in a certain manner or refused to do certain things; where everyone is free to act against the interest of the State, where no one has sufficient authority to undertake an initiative which may be without precedent but none-the-less indispensable.

Where there is a will, there is a way. Secrecy has been well kept in the United States concerning the atomic bomb and in other cases. Therefore, it is possible in a democracy to establish a rule of secrecy for that which is essential to the national interest, to impose silence on the generals, on the politicians and functionaries who since the war never cease publically to inform the enemy concerning American acts and intentions. It is possible also to prescribe what is proper civic conduct and to refuse to spread out official differences in public for all the world to see. It is possible to refuse to release to newspapers information of the type that Soviet specialists try to procure at any price. A country where so many Bibles are published must know, as it is said in Ecclesiastes, that there is a time to speak and a time to be silent.

It is essential that the United States be respected in the world and that they no longer allow themselves to be insulted willfully by the communists. It is essential that the United States cease the policy of replying by soft words and smiles

to the most atrocious defamations (bacteriological warfare, Rosenberg trial, "criminal-colonialism", "atomic-warmongering"). It is not by favors and friendly gestures that Moscow will be seduced. On the contrary, Moscow would be inclined to retract their calumnies if Americans adopted a sober, correct, attitude towards the USSR refusing to cede uselessly on any point, always ready to break relations with Moscow at the moment they deteriorated. Briefly, the same rules of conduct which govern private individuals should be applied in forgien relations between states.

The restauration of a traditional character to the conduct of diplomacy becomes an urgent necessity after so many years of sloppiness which has degraded the conduct of international relations. It is not the role of the President of the United States nor that of his Secretary of State to argue in public, on the radio, or in press conferences with the Secretary of the communist party of the Soviet Union or with his Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is the role of Ambassadors to negotiate discretely, to smooth over difficulties and to refer problems to their government. Even more obviously, it is prejudicial to the cause of the free world to invite Khrushchev on a spectacular tour of the United States which Khrushchev then presents as a triumphal expedition from which communism comes out victorious and more powerful than ever (see the book of some 678 pages "Face to face with America" which has just been published in Moscow).

The clear interest of the United States and its democratic allies is to foresee the coming crisis of the United Nations and to prepare accordingly without delay a reform of that institution which otherwise will become another instrument of war to be used by the Soviet Union against the free nations. Already the coalition of the Soviet-satellite bloc with the afro-asian group disrupts the regular working of the organization. The recent admission of Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Ghana, and Guinea, soon to be coupled with that of the Camerouns, then of Mauritania, Dahomey, Togo, Belgian Congo, Somaliland, Tanganyika, and so on, will create a disasterous situation where a 2/3 majority will be maneuverable by Moscow and Cairo. The

-31-

continous summit conferences agreed upon by the four great powers already reduce
the United Nations greatly in their importance. But the hour is approaching when
the United Nations themselves will be an influence of real harm to the West necessi-
tating the organization's suppression unless a serious reform can be undertaken in
time.

Since Moscow has declared ideological war in an unequivocal fashion and
neglects no step which may further her efforts in this direction, the West can not
avoid reacting strongly in order to counter this campaign. It is not a question of
finding another monolithic dogma to oppose to that of marxism-leninism, but of formu-
lating a rational critique based on a plurality of opinions and non-oppressive con-
ceptions. To date the leaders of the "open society" of the West have not taken the
trouble to formulate any sort of doctrine or to sponsor the formulation of a modern
doctrine of liberalism by qualified intellectuals. It is high time to fill in this
gap, using a language which will be comprehensible to the sequestrated elites behind
the iron curtain. The Soviet Union, in particular, now possesses frontiers which may
be permeated by ideas coming from the outside. Its young generations are tired of a
terminology which does not correspond to verifiable realities. The seeds of a truly
living thought can fall on fertile ground in the USSR. The disaffection with stereo-
typed dialectical-materialism which has already been witnesses in the communist world
by clear-sighted observers renders all the more necessary introduction of an antidote
to the official Soviet poison. The cost of such a program would be much less than
the price of a military airplane or a ballistic missile.

As to the more day-to-day themes of the "ideological struggle", the worst
error is to accept the Soviet slogans as words from the Scriptures, repeating them
ourselves without rhyme or reason, without critical examination, instead of refuting
them right in the beginning and turning them to ridicule. Such fictions as "peaceful
competition" the "economic challenge" or the "race to space" have become common terms

-32-

only because of the echo which bounces them back. There does not exist any possible challenge, nor can anybody pick it up, nor is competition possible between "systems" so fundamentally different. Only an absolute centralized power at the head of the United States could decide to enter into a competition with the Soviet Union or China, could decide to reply to a challenge in Soviet terms. A society which is relatively free does not compare the fruits of its liberty to the products of a type of slavery, lacking any common measure. And the so-called "race for space" is a scientific luxury acquired to the detriment of the people's well-being, and is therefore neither a proof of superiority nor of civilization.

The United States would refurbish their prestige through abstaining from giving the impression of panic anytime the willfully unscrupulous leaders in Moscow and Peking declare that they have broken a record, or announce some new illusory program which promises all sorts of marvels which will be realized some ten years hence. Common sense can deal with such boastfullness through competent analysis, through calm refusal both of the "challenge" or the "competition", accompanied by a type of publicity that Americans are capable of giving such a posture and a convincing argumentation that can cut through the Soviet bluff. Successes in the astro-nautical field clearly merit congratulations to the valorous scientists and technicians who carried them out, not praises for the despotic regime which exploits such successes for its imperialist aims. Nor do these successes justify enormous head-lines and ridiculous commentaries in the press of a type which tend to trouble public opinion and sow defeatism.

Destiny favored for some two centuries the United States by sparing America strong, hostile neighbors, and protecting the country through the immensity of the seas around the north American continent. In a new era of their history the United States have had to learn while making a number of errors which were probably inevitable. Now America must realize that "one does not play bridge with people who are playing poker". Nothing is lost, because in reality war, the supreme catastrophe, does not menace humanity, because atomic arms themselves render impossible the risk

-33-

of such a war. The first Philippic of Demosthenes has a particular meaning for America today: "One should not despair, Athenians, for the present state of our affairs, even though they appear to be at their lowest ebb. In reality, that which was most deplorable in the past is at the same time that which is most encouraging for the future ...It is because you did not do that which you should have done that things today go badly for us. If you had done everything that was necessary and our condition was at its present point then in truth we would have to despair of ever expecting our fate to improve..."

It will not be possible to discover any magic solution of the unprecedented problem of "peaceful coexistence" posed by the insatiable imperialism of the Soviet Union and Communist China. It will be necessary to oppose against professional subversives specialists in counter-subversion, to oppose propaganda of the "ideological struggle" with intellectuals of ideological peace. The task of statesmen in the West today, who are conscious of their responsibilities in a period characterized neither by true peace nor by murderous war, is to decide, to organize and to stimulate with patience and vigilance the counter-attack of the West to the multiple assaults of Oriental despotism. In brief, scientific progress has for our time eliminated the possibility of choosing between "the arms of criticism and criticism by means of arms". It remains to us to draw the proper conclusions.