Translated by J. Fineberg.
On March 1, 1936, Joseph Stalin granted an interview to Roy Howard,
President of Scripps-Howard Newspapers, the text of which follows.
Howard: What, in your opinion, would be the
consequences of the recent events in Japan for the situation in
the Far East?
Stalin: So far it is difficult to say. Too little material is available to do so. The picture is not sufficiently clear.
Howard: What will be the Soviet attitude should
Japan launch the long-predicted military drive against Outer
Stalin: If Japan should venture to attack the
Mongolian People's Republic and encroach upon its independence,
we will have to help the Mongolian People's Republic.
Stomonyakov, Litvinov's assistant, recently informed the
Japanese ambassador in Moscow of this and pointed to the
immutable friendly relations which the U.S.S.R. has been
maintaining with the Mongolian People's Republic since 1921. We
will help the Mongolian People's Republic just as we helped it
Howard: Would a Japanese attempt to seize Ulan-Bator make positive action by the U.S.S.R. a necessity?
Howard: Have recent events developed any new
Japanese activities in this region which are construed by the
Soviets as of an aggressive nature?
Stalin: The Japanese, I think, are continuing to
concentrate troops on the frontiers of the Mongolian People's
Republic, but no new attempts at frontier conflicts are so far
Howard: The Soviet Union appears to believe that
Germany and Poland have aggressive designs against the Soviet
Union 6 and are planning military cooperation. Poland, however, protested her unwillingness to permit any
foreign troops using her territory as a basis for operations
against a third nation. How does the Soviet Union envisage such
aggression by Germany? From what position, in what direction
would the German forces operate?
Stalin: History shows that when any state intends
to make war against another state, even not adjacent, it begins
to seek for frontiers across which it can reach the frontiers of
the state it wants to attack, Usually, the aggressive state
finds such frontiers. It either finds them with the aid of force, as was the case in
1914 when Germany invaded Belgium in order to strike at France,
or it "borrows" such a frontier, as Germany, for example, did
from Latvia in 1918, in her drive to Leningrad. I do not know
precisely what frontiers Germany may adapt to her aims, but I
think she will find people willing to "lend" her a frontier.
Howard: Seemingly, the entire world to-day is
predicting another great war. If war proves inevitable, when,
Mr. Stalin, do you think it will come?
Stalin: It is impossible to predict that. War may
break out unexpectedly. Wars are not declared, nowadays. They
simply start. On the other hand, however, I think the positions
of the friends of peace are becoming stronger. The friends of
peace can work openly. They rely on the power of public
opinion. They have at their command instruments like the League
of Nations, for example. This is where the friends of peace
have the advantage. Their strength lies in the fact that their
activities against war are backed by the will of the broad
masses of the people. There is not a people in the world that
wants war. As for the enemies of peace, they are compelled to
work secretly. That is where the enemies of peace are at a
disadvantage. Incidentally, it is not precluded that precisely
because of this they may decide upon a military adventure as an
act of desperation.
One of the latest successes the friends of peace have achieved
is the ratification of the Franco-Soviet Pact of Mutual
Assistance by the French Chamber of Deputies. To 7 a certain
extent, this pact is an obstacle to the enemies of peace.
Howard: Should war come, Mr. Stalin, where is it
most likely to break out? Where are the war clouds the most
menacing, in the East or in the West?
Stalin: In my opinion there are two seats of war
danger. The first is in the Far East, in the zone of Japan. I
have in mind the numerous statements made by Japanese military
men containing threats against other powers. The second seat is
in the zone of Germany. It is hard to say which is the most
menacing, but both exist and are active. Compared with these
two principal seats of war danger, the Italian-Abyssinian war is
an episode. At present, the Far Eastern seat of danger reveals
the greatest activity. However, the centre of this danger may
shift to Europe. This is indicated, for example, by the
interview which Herr Hitler recently gave to a French newspaper.
In this interview Hitler seems to have tried to say peaceful
things, but he sprinkled his "peacefulness" so plentifully with
threats against both France and the Soviet Union that nothing
remained of his "peacefulness." You see, even when Herr Hitler
wants to speak of peace he cannot avoid uttering threats. This
Howard: What situation or condition, in your
opinion, furnishes the chief war menace to-day?
Howard: In which specific manifestation of
Stalin: Its imperialist, usurpatory manifestation.
You remember how the first World War arose. It arose out of
the desire to re-divide the world. Today we have the same
background. There are capitalist states which consider that
they were cheated in the previous redistribution of spheres of
influence, territories, sources of raw materials, markets, etc.,
and which would want another re-division that would be in their
favour. Capitalism, in its imperialist phase, is a system which
considers war to be a legitimate instrument for settling
international disputes, a legal method in fact, if not in law. 8
Howard: May there not be an element of danger in
the genuine fear existent in what you term capitalistic
countries of an intent on the part of the Soviet Union to force
its political theories on other nations?
Stalin: There is no justification whatever for
such fears. If you think that Soviet people want to change the
face of surrounding states, and by forcible means at that, you
are entirely mistaken. Of course, Soviet people would like to
see the face of surrounding states changed, but that is the
business of the surrounding states. I fail to see what danger
the surrounding states can perceive in the ideas of the Soviet
people if these states are really sitting firmly in the saddle.
Howard: Does this, your statement, mean that the
Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and
intentions for bringing about world revolution?
Stalin: We never had such plans and intentions.
Howard: You appreciate, no doubt, Mr. Stalin,
that much of the world has long entertained a different
Stalin: This is the product of a misunderstanding.
Howard: A tragic misunderstanding?
Stalin: No, a comical one. Or, perhaps,
You see, we Marxists believe that a revolution will also take
place in other countries. But it will take place only when the
revolutionaries in those countries think it possible, or
necessary. The export of revolution is nonsense. Every country
will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not
want to, there will be no revolution. For example, our country
wanted to make a revolution and made it, and now we are building
a new, classless society. But to assert that we want to make a revolution in other
countries, to interfere in their lives, means saying what is
untrue, and what we have never advocated.
Howard: At the time of the establishment of
diplomatic relations between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A.,
President Roosevelt and Litvinov exchanged identical notes
concerning the question of propaganda. Paragraph four of Litvinov's letter to President Roosevelt said
that the Soviet government undertakes "not to permit the
formation or residence on its 9 territory of any organisation or
group—and to prevent the activity on its territory of any
organisation or group, or of representatives or officials of any
organisation or group—which has as its aim, the overthrow, or
preparation for the overthrow of, or the bringing about by force
of a change in the political or social order of the whole or any
part of its territories or possessions." Why, Mr. Stalin, did
Litvinov sign this letter if compliance with the terms of
paragraph four is incompatible with the interests of the Soviet
Union or beyond its control?
Stalin: The fulfilment of the obligations
contained in the paragraph you have quoted is within our
control; we have fulfilled, and will continue to fulfil, these
According to our constitution political emigrants have the
right to reside on our territory. We provide them with the
right of asylum just as the United States gives right of asylum
to political emigrants. It is quite obvious that when Litvinov signed that letter he
assumed that the obligations contained in it were mutual. Do
you think, Mr. Howard, that the fact that there are on the
territory of the U.S.A. Russian white guard emigrants who are
carrying on propaganda against the Soviets and in favour of
capitalism, who enjoy the material support of American citizens
and who in some cases represent groups of terrorists, is
contrary to the terms of the Roosevelt-Litvinov agreement?
Evidently these emigrants enjoy the right of asylum, which also
exists in the United States. As far as we are concerned, we
would never tolerate on our territory a single terrorist, no
matter against whom his criminal designs were directed.
Evidently the right of asylum is given a wider interpretation in
the U.S.A. than in our country. But we are not complaining.
Perhaps you will say that we sympathize with the political
emigrants who come on to our territory. But are there no American citizens who sympathize with the
white guard emigrants who carry on propaganda in favour of
capitalism and against the Soviets? So what is the point? The
point is not to assist these people, not to finance their
activities. The point is that official persons in either
country must 10 refrain from interfering in the internal life of
the other country. Our officials are honestly fulfilling this
obligation. If any of them has failed in his duty, let us be
informed about it.
If we were to go too far and to demand that all the whiteguard
emigrants be deported from the United States, that would be
encroaching on the right of asylum proclaimed both in the U.S.A.
and in the U.S.S.R. A reasonable limit to claims and
counterclaims must be recognised. Litvinov signed his letter to
President Roosevelt, not in a private capacity, but in the
capacity of representative of a state, just as President
Roosevelt did. Their agreement is an agreement between two
states. In signing that agreement both Litvinov and President
Roosevelt, as representatives of two states, had in mind the
activities of the agents of their states who must not and will
not interfere in the internal affairs of the other side. The
right of asylum proclaimed in both countries could not be
affected by this agreement. The Roosevelt-Litvinov agreement, as an agreement between the
representatives of two states, should be interpreted within
Howard: Did not Browder and Darcy, the American
Communists, appearing before the Seventh Congress of the
Communist International last summer, appeal for the overthrow by
force of the American government?
Stalin: I confess I do not remember the speeches
of Comrades Browder and Darcy; I do not even remember what they
spoke about. Perhaps they did say something of the kind. But
it was not Soviet people who formed the American Communist
Party. It was formed by Americans. It exists in the U.S.A. legally. It puts up its candidates at elections, including
presidential elections. If Comrades Browder and Darcy made
speeches in Moscow once, they made hundreds of similar, and
certainly stronger speeches at home, in the U.S.A. The American
Communists are permitted to advocate their ideas freely, are
they not? It would be quite wrong to hold the Soviet government
responsible for the activities of American Communists. 11
Howard: But in this instance, is it not a fact
that their activities took place on Soviet soil, contrary to the
terms of paragraph four of the agreement between Roosevelt and
Stalin: What are the activities of the Communist
Party; in what way can they manifest themselves? Usually their activities consist in organising the masses of
the workers, in organising meetings, demonstrations, strikes,
etc. It goes without saying that the American Communists cannot
do all this on Soviet territory. We have no American workers in
Howard: I take it that the gist of your thought
then is that an interpretation can be made which will safeguard
and continue good relations between our countries?
Stalin: Yes, absolutely.
Howard: Admittedly communism has not been achieved
in Russia. State socialism has been built. Have not fascism in Italy and national-socialism in Germany
claimed that they have attained similar results? Have not both
been achieved at the price of privation and personal liberty,
sacrificed for the good of the state?
Stalin: The term "state socialism" is inexact. Many people take this term to mean the system under which a
certain part of wealth, sometimes a fairly considerable part,
passes into the hands of the state, or under its control, while
in the overwhelming majority of cases the works, factories and
the land remain the property of private persons. This is what
many people take "state socialism" to mean. Sometimes this term
covers a system under which the capitalist state, in order to
prepare for or wage war, runs a certain number of private
enterprises at its own expense. The society which we have built
cannot possibly be called "state socialism." Our Soviet society
is socialist society, because the private ownership of the
factories, works, the land, the banks and the transport system
has been abolished and public ownership put in its place. The
social organisation which we have created may be called a Soviet
socialist organisation, not entirely completed, but
fundamentally, a socialist organisation of society. The foundation of this 12 society is
public property: state, i.e., national, and also co-operative, collective farm
property. Neither Italian fascism nor German national-
"socialism" has anything in common with such a society.
Primarily, this is because the private ownership of the
factories and works, of the land, the banks, transport, etc.,
has remained intact, and, therefore, capitalism remains in full
force in Germany and in Italy.
Yes, you are right, we have not yet built communist society.
It is not so easy to build such a society. You are probably
aware of the difference between socialist society and communist
society. In socialist society certain inequalities in property
still exist. But in socialist society there is no longer
unemployment, no exploitation, no oppression of nationalities.
In socialist society everyone is obliged to work, although he
does not, in return for his labour receive according to his
requirements, but according to the quantity and quality of the
work he has performed. That is why wages, and, moreover,
unequal, differentiated wages, still exist. Only when we have
succeeded in creating a system under which in return for their
labour people will receive from society, not according to the
quantity and quality of the labour they perform, but according
to their requirements, will it be possible to say that we have
built communist society.
You say that in order to build our socialist society we
sacrificed personal liberty and suffered privation. Your question suggests that socialist society denies personal
liberty. That is not true. Of course, in order to build
something new one must economize, accumulate resources, reduce
one's consumption for a time and borrow from others. If one
wants to build a house one saves up money, cuts down consumption
for a time, otherwise the house would never be built. How much more true is this when it is a matter of building a
new human society? We had to cut down consumption somewhat for
a time, collect the necessary resources and exert great effort.
This is exactly what we did and we built a socialist society.
But we did not build this society in order to restrict 13 personal
liberty but in order that the human individual may feel really
free. We built it for the sake of real personal liberty,
liberty without quotation marks. It is difficult for me to
imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed
person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment.
Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been
abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where
there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted
by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home, and of
bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal
and every other liberty possible.
Howard: Do you view as compatible the coincidental
development of American democracy and the Soviet system?
Stalin: American democracy and the Soviet system
may peacefully exist side by side and compete with each other.
But one cannot evolve into the other. The Soviet system will not evolve into American democracy, or
vice versa. We can peacefully exist side by side if we do not
find fault with each other over every trifling matter.
Howard: A new constitution is being elaborated in
the U.S.S.R. providing for a new system of elections. To what
degree can this new system alter the situation in the U.S.S.R.
since, as formerly, only one party will come forward at
Stalin: We shall probably adopt our new
constitution at the end of this year. The commission appointed
to draw up the constitution is working and should finish its
labours soon. As has been announced already, according to the
new constitution, the suffrage will be universal, equal, direct
and secret. You are puzzled by the fact that only one party will come
forward at elections. You cannot see how election contests can
take place under these conditions. Evidently candidates will be
put forward not only by the Communist Party, but by all sorts of
public, non-Party organisations. And we have hundreds of these.
We have no contending parties any more than we have a capitalist
class contending against a working class which is exploited by
the capitalists. Our society consists exclusively of free 14 toilers of town and
country—workers, peasants, intellectuals. Each of these strata may have its special interests and express
them by means of the numerous public organisations that exist.
But since there are no classes, since the dividing lines between
classes have been obliterated, since only a slight, but not a
fundamental, difference between various strata in socialist
society has remained, there can be no soil for the creation of
contending parties. Where there are not several classes there
cannot be several parties, for a party is part of a class.
Under national-"socialism" there is also only one party. But
nothing will come of this fascist one-party system. The point
is that in Germany, capitalism and classes have remained, the
class struggle has remained and will force itself to the surface
in spite of everything, even in the struggle between parties
which represent antagonistic classes, just as it did in Spain,
for example. In Italy there is also only one party, the Fascist
Party. But nothing will come of it there for the same reasons.
Why will our suffrage be universal? Because all citizens,
except those deprived of the franchise by the courts, will have
the right to elect and be elected.
Why will our suffrage be equal? Because neither differences in
property (which still exist to some extent) nor racial or
national affiliation will entail either privilege or disability.
Women will enjoy the same rights to elect and be elected as men.
Our suffrage will be really equal.
Why secret? Because we want to give Soviet people complete
freedom to vote for those they want to elect, for those whom
they trust to safeguard their interests.
Why direct? Because direct elections to all representative
institutions, right up to the supreme bodies, will best of all
safeguard the interests of the toilers of our boundless country.
You think that there will be no election contests.
But there will be, and I foresee very lively election
campaigns. There are not a few institutions in our country
which work badly. Cases occur when this or that local
government body 15 fails to satisfy certain of the multifarious and
growing requirements of the toilers of town and country. Have
you built a good school or not? Have you improved housing
conditions? Are you a bureaucrat? Have you helped to make our labour more
effective and our lives more cultured? Such will be the criteria with which millions of electors will
measure the fitness of candidates, reject the unsuitable,
expunge their names from candidates' lists, and promote and
nominate the best. Yes, election campaigns will be very lively, they will be
conducted around numerous, very acute problems, principally of a
practical nature, of first class importance for the people. Our
new electoral system will tighten up all institutions and
organisations and compel them to improve their work. Universal,
direct and secret suffrage in the U.S.S.R. will be a whip in
the hands of the population against the organs of government
which work badly. In my opinion our new Soviet constitution
will be the most democratic constitution in the world.
Recorded by K. UMANSKY.
latest news and pictures
of the Soviet Union each month in
per year post free
F.S.U. 28 John Street, London, W.C.I