Part VI

THE SOVIET UNION

212. THE COMMUNIST DOCTRINE OF WARS OF LIBERATION: Address by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. (Khrushchev) Before a Meeting of Party Organizations of the CPSU, Moscow, January 6, 1961 (Excerpts) 1

1

COMRADES: The conference of representatives of 81 Marxist-Leninist parties held in Moscow in November 1960 will enter the history of the world Communist and Workers movement as one of its most vivid pages. This conference profoundly analyzed the present-day international situation and worked out positions common for our movement pertaining to the most important questions. As a result of this conference, held in an atmosphere of fraternal unity, the manymillion-strong family of Communists of all countries rallied even closer on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, and its forces in the heroic struggle for the triumph of the cause of peace and socialism increased.

Comrades, questions of war and peace were at the center of attention at the conference. The participants were fully aware that the problem of preventing a global thermonuclear war is the most burning and vital problem for mankind. V. I. Lenin pointed out that since World War I the question of war and peace has become the cardinal question in the entire policy of all countries on earth, a question of life and death for tens of millions of people. These words of Lenin resound with increased force in our days, when an application of the new means of mass destruction threatens unprecedented devastation and the death of hundreds of millions of people.

In modern conditions the following categories of wars should be distinguished: World wars, local wars, liberation wars, and popular uprisings. This is necessary to work out the correct tactics with regard to these wars.

Let us begin with the question of world wars. Communists are the most determined opponents of world wars, just as they are generally opponents of wars among states. These wars are needed only by imperialists to seize the territories of others, and to enslave and plunder other peoples. Before the formation of the world Socialist camp the working class had no opportunity to make a determining impact on the solution of the question of whether there should or should not be world wars. In these conditions the best representatives of the working class raised the slogan of turning imperialist wars into civil wars, or to exploit the situation that had arisen to seize power.

This kind of situation arose during the World War I and was classically used by the Bolshevik Party and Lenin. In our times different conditions have

1

Appendix III to S. Doc. 46, 87th Cong., Aug. 24, 1961, pp. 52–78. 2 See footnote 29 to doc. 4, ante.

developed. The world Socialist camp is making an ever-growing impact, through its economic might and its armed forces, on the solution of problems of war and peace.

Of course, there also are among the imperialist countries acute contradictions and antagonisms, as well as the desire to profit at the expense of others who are weaker; yet imperialists now must keep an eye on the Soviet Union and the whole Socialist camp, and are afraid of starting wars among themselves. They are trying to play down their differences; they have set up military blocs in which they have involved many capitalist countries. Although these blocs are being torn by internal struggle, their members-as they themselves say-are united in their hatred of communism and, of course, by the nature and aspirations of imperialism.

In present conditions, the most probable wars are wars among capitalist and imperialist countries, and this too should not be ruled out.

Wars are chiefly prepared by imperialists against Socialist countries, and in the first place against the Soviet Union as the most powerful of the Socialist states. Imperialists would wish to undermine our might and thus reestablish the former domination of monopolistic capital. The task is to create impassable obstacles against the unleashing of wars by imperialists. We possess increasing possibilities for placing obstacles in the path of the warmongers. Consequently, we can forestall the outbreak of a world war.

Of course, as yet we are unable to completely exclude the possibility of wars, for the imperialist states exist. However, the unleashing of wars has become a much more complicated business for the imperialists than it was before the emergence of the mighty Socialist camp. Imperialists can unleash a war, but they must think hard about the consequences.

I already said that even if the crazy Hitler had realized what a devastating rout was in store for his bloody gamble and had seen that he would have to commit suicide, he would have thought twice before starting a war against the Soviet Union. Then there were but two Socialist countries, the Soviet Union and the Mongolian People's Republic, and yet we routed the aggressors, having also exploited the contradictions between imperialistic states.

The picture now is quite different: the Socialist countries, which represent a mighty force, now oppose the imperialist camp. It would be a mistake to minimize the strength of the Socialist camp and its influence on the course of world events and thus on the solution of the question of whether wars will take place. In conditions where a mighty Socialist camp exists, possessing powerful armed forces, the peoples, by mobilization of all their forces for active struggle against the warmongering imperialists, can indisputably prevent war and thus insure peaceful coexistence.

A word or two about local wars. A lot is being said nowadays in the imperialist camp about local wars, and they are even making small-caliber atomic weapons for use in such wars; a special theory of local wars has been concocted. Is this fortuitous? Of course not. Certain imperialist circles, fearing that world war might end in the complete collapse of capitalism, are putting their money on unleashing local wars.

There have been local wars and they may occur again in the future, but opportunities for imperialists to unleash these wars too are becoming fewer and fewer. A small imperialist war, regardless of which imperialist begins it, may grow into a world thermonuclear rocket war. We must therefore combat both world wars and local wars.

3

As an example of a local war unleashed by the imperialists, we may take the Anglo-French-Israeli aggression against Egypt. They wanted to strangle Egypt and thus intimidate the Arab countries struggling for independence, and also to frighten the other peoples of Asia and Africa. British statesmen, including Eden, spoke quite openly of their desire to deal summarily with Egypt when we were in London. We told them frankly: If you start a war, you will lose it; we will not remain neutral. When that war started, the United Nations formally condemned it, but this did not worry the aggressors and they went on with their dirty deed and even thought they had almost achieved their ends.

3 See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1956, pp. 579-702.

The Soviet Union and the whole Socialist camp came to the defense of Egypt. The Soviet Government's stark warning to Eden and Guy Mollet stopped the war. The local war, the venture in Egypt, failed miserably.

This was in 1956, when the balance of power between the countries of socialism and the countries of imperialism was not the same as it is today. We were not as mighty then as we are today. In addition, the rulers of Britain, France, and Israel reckoned on being able to utilize the difficulties which had arisen in Hungary and Poland. Spokesmen of imperialist states were whispering into our ears: You have your difficulties in Hungary, we have ours in Egypt; therefore do not interfere in our affairs. Yet we gave a due reply to these whisperers. We did not shut our eyes to their bandit deeds. We interfered and stopped their aggression. Here is an example of how a local war started by the imperialist was stopped as a result of the interference by the Soviet Union and the entire Socialist camp.

I have already said that local wars are also not excluded in the future. Therefore, our task is to be always on guard, mobilizing both the forces of the Socialist camp and the peoples of the world, all the peace-loving forces, for prevention of aggressive wars. If the peoples of all countries are united and mobilized, if they wage a tireless struggle, uniting their efforts both inside each country and on a world scale, wars can be averted.

5

Now a word about national liberation wars. The armed struggle by the Vietnamese people or the war of the Algerian people, which is already in its 7th year," serve as the latest examples of such wars, These wars began as an uprising by the colonial peoples against their oppressors and changed into guerrilla warfare. Liberation wars will continue to exist as long as imperialism exists, as long as colonialism exists. These are revolutionary wars. Such wars are not only admissible but inevitable, since the colonialists do not grant independence voluntarily. Therefore, the peoples can attain their freedom and independence only by struggle, including armed struggle.

How is it that the U.S. imperialists, while desirous of helping the French colonialists in every way, decided against direct intervention in the war in Vietnam? They did not intervene because they knew that if they did help France with armed forces, Vietnam would get relevant aid from China, the Soviet Union, and other Socialist countries, which could lead to a world war. The outcome of the war is known. North Vietnam was victorious.

At present, a similar war is taking place in Algeria. What kind of war is it? It is the uprising of the Arab people in Algeria against French colonizers. It is being conducted in the form of a partisan war. The imperialists in the United States and Britain render assistance to their French allies with arms. Moreover, they have allowed France, a participant in NATO, to transfer its troops from Europe for the struggle against the Algerian people.

The Algerian people, too, receive assistance from neighboring and other countries that sympathize with their peace-loving aspirations. But it is a liberation war of a people for its independence, it is a sacred war. We recognize such wars, we help and will help the peoples striving for their independence. Or let us take Cuba's example. A war took place there too. But it also started as an uprising against the internal tyrannical regime supported by U.S. imperialism. Batista was a protege of the United States. The latter rendered active assistance to him. However, the United States did not interfere in that war directly with its Armed Forces. The Cuban people, under the leadership of Fidel Castro, have won.

3 See American Foreign Policy, 1950-1955: Basic Documents, pp. 750-788 and 2363-2405.

See ibid., pp. 2301–2302; American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1956, pp. 722-724; ibid., 1957, pp. 1067–1075; ibid., 1958, pp. 1086-1088 and 1091-1093: ibid., 1959, pp. 1096-1106; ibid., 1960, pp. 515-521; and post, docs. 311-319.

7

See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1958, pp. 343, 349-350, 1553; ibid., 1959, pp. 326, 328-329, 352–353, 377–382; ibid., 1960, pp. 195–256; and ante, docs. 82-119.

Can such wars flare up in the future? They can. Can there be such uprisings? There can. But these are wars which are national uprisings. In other words, can conditions be created where a people will lose their patience and rise in arms? They can. What is the attitude of the Marxists toward such uprisings? A most positive one. These uprisings must not be identified with wars among states, with local wars, since in these uprisings the people are fighting for implementation of their right for self-determination, for independent social and national development. These are uprisings against rotten reactionary regimes, against the colonizers. The Communists fully support such just wars and march in the front rank with the peoples waging liberation struggles.

Comrades, mankind has come close to the historic point where it can solve all problems which were beyond the strength of former generations. This also concerns the most vital issue, the prevention of a world war. The working class, which already leads a large part of the world-and the time will come when it will lead the whole world-cannot allow the forces doomed to ruin to drag hundreds of millions of people to the grave with them.

A sober appraisal of the inevitable consequences of nuclear war is the indispensable condition for a persistent pursuance of a policy of preventing war, and of mobilizing the masses for the solution of this task.

After all, the very appreciation of the threat of devastating war strengthens the will of the masses to struggle against war. Therefore it is essential to warn the masses of the most dangerous consequences of a new world war and, thereby, to rouse the sacred wrath of the peoples against those who are preparing this crime.

The possibility of preventing war is not something like a gift. Peace cannot be begged for; it can only be assured by active purposeful struggle. we have waged and will wage such a struggle.

That is why

The entire foreign policy of the Soviet Union is directed toward the strengthening of peace. The growing might of our state has been used by us and will in the future be used not to threaten anyone, not to fan the fear of war, but to steadfastly pursue a policy of struggle against the danger of war, for the prevention of a world war. We have been and are prompted by the desire to maintain and strengthen friendly relations with all peoples in the interests of peace on the basis of the principles of peaceful coexistence.

Comrades, life itself bears out the correctness of the Leninist policy of peaceful coexistence of states with diverse social systems, consistently pursued by the Soviet Union and the other Socialist countries. Our party considers the policy of peaceful coexistence, which has been handed down to us by Lenin, to be the general line of our foreign policy. Peaceful coexistence is the high road of international relations between Socialist and capitalist countries. The consistent implementation of the policy of peaceful coexistence strengthens the position of the world Socialist system, promotes the growth of its economic might, its international prestige and influence among the people's masses, and creates for it favorable foreign-political possibilities in peaceful competition with capitalism.

A. Efforts To Improve Soviet-United States Understanding-Preparations for the Kennedy-Khrushchev Meeting at Vienna

UNITED STATES PROPOSAL FOR THE MUTUAL ABOLITION OR RECIPROCAL REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF ZONES IN THE SOVIET UNION AND THE UNITED STATES CLOSED TO TRAVEL BY THE OTHER'S NATIONALS: Note From the Secretary of State (Herter) to the Soviet Ambassador at Washington (Menshikov), January 6, 1961 1

SOVIET PROTEST OF THE ALLEGED INTERCEPTION OF THE TANKER SVERDLOVSK BY UNITED STATES VESSELS IN THE CARIBBEAN: Note of the Soviet Government Handed to the American Ambassador at Moscow (Thompson) by the Soviet Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs (Kuznetsov), January 14, 1961 2

213. SOVIET HOPE FOR "A FUNDAMENTAL IMPROVEMENT" IN RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES AND FOR "NORMALIZATION OF THE WHOLE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION": Message From the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (Brezhnev) and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. (Khrushchev) to the President of the United States (Kennedy), January 20, 1961 s

8

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: We congratulate you on the occasion of your inauguration. Availing ourselves of this opportunity we wish to express the hope that by our own joint efforts we shall succeed in achieving a fundamental improvement in relations between our countries and a normalization of the whole international situation. We are convinced that, step by step, it will be possible to remove existing suspicion and distrust and cultivate seeds of friendship and practical cooperation between our peoples. On its side, the Soviet Government is always ready to support any good undertakings in this direction and do everything in its power in order that durable peace may be established in the world, so that all nations may live in friendship and without enmity.

1

1 Department of State press release No. 8; the Department of State Bulletin, Jan. 23, 1961, pp. 119-120.

'Ibid., Feb. 6, 1961, p. 178. On Jan. 19, the Department of State delivered a note to the Soviet Embassy in Washington reporting that "an investigation of the allegations in the Ministry's note has established that the Soviet ship Sverdlovsk was not stopped in the Caribbean Sea by American ships, and that "the United States Government sees no basis for protest on the part of the Soviet Government." (Ibid., p. 177.)

"White House press release dated Jan. 21, 1961 (text as printed in the Department of State Bulletin, Feb. 13, 1961, p. 215).

Doc. 213