« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
One American armored division is worth 100,000 of the vaunted foot soldiers of Russia who did nothing much but march into a vacuum, anyway.
Mr. LODGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Rimanoczy.
We come down to this point, I believe, that a great many of us favor Resolution 59, and many of us have favored proceeding under article 51.
The question comes down to this:
Once a conference called under 109 fails, do we proceed under 51 as we have been proceeding or do we under 51 form another United Nations, with the amendments suggested in Resolution 163, while retaining our membership in the old United Nations.
It seems to me that is the question and that is a question upon which honest men can differ.
Thank you very much.
Mr. JUDD. To tie down this one question about the veto, is it true, Mr. Rimanoczy, that if you have in a constitution or structure a provision which one nation can abuse, then other nations can abuse it?
Mr. RIMANOCZY. That is the point I tried to make. It happens to be Russia now but who knows who it will be a hundred years from DOW.
Mr. Jupp. If it is capable of abuse by anyone, you have not a good structure and you ought to amend your structure.
To go back to prohibition days: It was not enough to say that people violated prohibition. If there was a law which a majority of the people wanted to violate and succeeded in violating the only thing to do was to change that law? It was not workable?
Mr. RIMANOCZY. That is right.
Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Lodge spoke of proceeding under article 51. Article 51 provides:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense, if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations. Do you think that is the situation that occurs now?
Is there a case of armed attack occurring against a member of the United Nations?
Mr. RIMANOCzy. I do not know. I understood the Mutual Defense Pact in this hemisphere was based on 51.
Mr. CHIPERFIELD. That was my understanding but looking at the language here I can hardly understand it. I always felt that an agreement like the Act of Chapultepec, ought to be under article 52, which says:
Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace.
We keep talking about 51 when it seems to me it would be more logical to have a club within a club under 52.
Mr. RIMANOCzy. I was surprised to see it was done under 51. I like the phrase in the Senate bill, which reads "or other methods found suitable by the United Nations."
Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Thank you very much for your very constructive statement.
The committee will recess until 2 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 12:45 p. m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 2 p. m., of the same day.)
Chairman Eaton. The committee will come to order.
The first witness this afternoon is Mr. Max Eastman. We are glad to have you here Mr. Eastman. Please identify yourself and give us your official connection. You do not need to identify yourself any further.
STATEMENT OF MAX EASTMAN, AUTHORITY ON SOVIET RUSSIA
Mr. EASTMAN. I am an author and I am a roving editor of the Reader's Digest.
Chairman Eaton. We congratulate you on that very lucrative position.
Mr. EASTMAN. Do you want me to go ahead and make my statement?
Chairman EATON. Have you a statement?
Mr. EASTMAN. I will not read it, but I will read some quotations as I go along.
The main thing I want to say is that I do not think the opponents of this measure realize that the heads of the Soviet state are not merely the heads of a police state in Russia, but they are the heads of a totalitarian world revolution.
What we are up against is an organized, tightly disciplined army of fanatical Communists numbering 20,000,000 all over the world who have their general staff in Moscow.
The general staff of world revolution is the Politburo in Moscow. Only 6,000,000 of these 20,000,000 Communists are in the Soviet Union.
The official number of Communists in the world is taken from the World Almanac. The figures on the number in the Soviet Union are from Pravda, the offitial organ of the Communist Party.
The policy of this organized and very largely armed movement against democratic civilization is to overthrow our Government and establish in its place a totalitarian police state, and a society on the model of that in the Soviet Union. The policy of it is laid down mainly in a little book written by Stalin called Problems of Leninism, which is published by the International Publishers in New York, and is available in a very good English translation, at 30 cents for the paper edition and a dollar and a half for the cloth-bound edition.
It is also laid down in the constitution and program of the Communists International, which is published by Human Events in Washington under the title "Blueprint for World Conquest.”
There has been some talk, and there still is, about the enigma of the policy of Stalin. I think it was Senator Vandenberg who not long ago referred to it as a “supreme conundrum,” and there still is a feeling that some mystcry or doubt hangs over the behavior of the Russian
delegates in the United Nations and the Russian ambassadors and foreign ministers. This doubt survives for no reason in the world except that, just as we refused to read Hitler's Mein Kampf, we are refusing to read the documents in which Stalin, addressing his own followers on whom he relies to achieve his ends, has written down his plan as plainly and openly as Hitler wrote his.
The bed ck of Soviet foreign policy I can read to you in one sentence from that little book, Problems of Leninism:
It is inconceivable that the Soviet Republic should continue to exist for a long period side by side with imperialist states; ultimately one or the other must conquer.
Imperalist states means us. And this isn't something that Stalin said in the 1920's or before the war or during the war, or yesterday. It is something he is saying right now all over the world in a book which is translated into all important languages, authorized by him, currently revised by him, used by his 20,000,000 followers as a campaign book and a handbook in every corner of the planet.
You can go out and buy it at a Communist bookstore anywhere in the United States. It is being shipped about the United States while we sit here talking. Stalin in that book is saying what I just read you, which happens to be a quotation, a reverent quotation, from Lenin.
Let me read you another quotation from the latest Russian edition of this book which was revised by Stalin in 1939. But first I will pause to say that if Stalin wanted to take back a word of what is written in this book he could do it by uttering one sentence in the right place, to the right people, and in the correct Marxian phraseology.
Here is another basic proposition of Russian foreign policy: The international significance of our revolution lies in this, that it is the beginning in our country of the cracking of the system of imperialism, a first step in the world revolution and a powerful base for its further development. What is our country as it builds socialism but a base for the world revolution?
That was Stalin's answer to those in his own party who imagined that in purging Trotsky and the other old Bolsheviks he had abandoned their program of world revolution, their program of producing chaos in the capitalist nations and effecting, when a crisis came, a Communist transformation. He didn't mind having our statesmen believe that, but not his own followers. They must know the truth. And they must know that it is going to be a bloody, violent, antidemocratic, and lawless job. So he put this also in his book, even in the English translation : "Can such a radical transformation of the old bourgeois system be achieved without a violent revolution, without the dictatorship of the proletariat? Obviously not. The scientific concept of "dictatorship" means nothing more or less than power which rests on violence, which is not limited by any laws or restricted by any absolute rules. Dictatorship means unlimited power resting on violence and not on law.
That in words quoted as gospel from Lenin is Stalin's blueprint for the future of our country. That from his own lips is his foreign policy and the foreign policy of 20,000,000 Communists all over the world. That is what we are up against.
And Stalin doesn't want any confusion about this among his American disciples. He doesn't want them to take seriously the hocus
pocus about peace and democracy with which he pulled the wool over our war leaders' eyes. So when he saw that victory was in sight, he had his deputy, Vishinsky, make a speech, recalling these uncompromising texts of Lenin and giving explicit notice that they are still in force. And at the risk of all America's reading it even by some prodigious accident our great diplomats—he had this speech translated into English and published in Washington by the Soviet Embassy 6 month, before the war ended. I quote two sentences from the Bulletin of the Soviet Embassy for November 17, 1945:
Lenin purged the teachings of Marx and exposed the sweet-sounding nonsense about a calm and smooth development of bourgeois society into socialism, nonsense to the effect that it is not in the fires of battle, not by means of revolutionary struggle, but in reconciling and smoothing out class contradictions that the Socialist transformation of the state is to be effected. Lenin developed the teachings of Marx on the important question of "smashing the bourgeois state apparatus.”
Now everybody who is familiar with Lenin's writings knows what that phrase "smash the bourgeoisestate apparatus” means. It means in the United States take over the Government offices and purge them of every officer and every clerk and every clerk's assistant who believes in the ideals or is imbued with the habits of representative goyernment or free enterprise. It means go into the buildings, disinfect them of democracy by means of summary arrests, executions, concentration camps, establish a ruthless, one-party dictatorship which will take over the industry and commerce and agriculture of the United States.
That was published in Washington long before we retired from Czechoslovakia and let the Soviets come in and take possession of it, long before we politely withdrew our troops and let them have Berlin and the eastern parts of Germany.
Now of course the Communist leaders do not intend this program for immediate execution. They are not dreamers. They are not fanciful people at all. They are people who believe in the Marxian technique of revolution. And the very essence of the whole Marxian system, insofar as it is a technique, is never to take any action until the conditions and particularly the economic conditions, are ripe. So they are not talking about now in this blueprint. They are awaiting the crisis which will give them their opportunity.
It is interesting, however, to note that as long as 17 years ago Stalin said this:
I think the moment is not far off when a revolutionary crisis will develop in America and when a revolutionary crisis develops in America, that will be the beginning of the end of world capitalism as a whole.
What Stalin thinks at present about the date is of course problematical. We don't know. But otherwise I think Russia's foreign policy is so plainly set down in those five quotations that only with an effort of will could one persuade himself there is any mystery about it.
The supreme conundrum to my mind is: Why does America, with the greatest scientific, industrial, and military power in history lack the courage to face political facts?
It is naturally very painful when you are attempting so nobly sensible a reform as a parliament of nations to end war, to have to admit that one of the great powers participating has other ends in
view. But it is a fact and there is no use deceiving ourselves about it.
The fact is proven not only by the behavior of the Soviet delegates, but by specifications plainly written down in the Communist scriptures.
The United Nations, as I said, is a parliament. From their point of view it is a bourgeois parliament, and for the revolutionary use of parliaments these Communist scriptures contain very explicit directions, which I also want to read you. I quote from a resolution of the Second Congress of the Communist International.
The Communist Party enters a parliament not to participate organically in its activities, but to undermine the parliament from within
to rally the
Is any further word needed to explain the Soviet boycotts, vetoes, the salvage calumnies of Gromyko, the abusive diatribes of Vishinsky? They are undermining the United Nations from within. They are rallying the masses for revolution in the other member nations.
The resolution continues: Every Communist representative is required to realize that he is not a legislator seeking agreement with other legislators, but an agitator of the party sent into the camp of the enemy in order to carry out the decisions of the party. He is not to make legal motions “with the aim of getting them adopted by the bourgeois majority,” but only “for propaganda, agitation, and organization."
The Soviet delegates, you see, are not ill-bred or rough or crude as Mrs. Roosevelt and some other delegates imagine. Very far from it. They are pursuing a prescribed line of action to a clearly and coolly defined end.
The resolution continues in italics: There can be no question of the utilization of bourgeois governmental institutions except for the purpose of their destruction. And as to what follows their destruction, the resolution is equally explicit:
The present historical duty of the working classwhich doesn't mean the working class, it means the world-wide Communist Partyis to snatch the parliamentary mechanisms from the ruling classes, to smash them, to destroy them, and substitute for them new organs of proletarian power. The new organ of power to be substituted for the United Nations is, of course, the Federation of Socialist Soviet Republics, the worldwide totalitarian Communist empire.
Stalin's policy then, and the foreign policy of the General Staff of the World Revolution in Moscow, is abundantly clear. He regards the present situation as an armed truce between the Soviet Union and its "enemies," the western democratic nations. In that true he will jockey for every position within our country and without which will enable him and his followers, or their successors, when the hour strikes, to seize the power here and establish a one-party police state. In this enterprise the United Nations in his view is an instrument to be used for propaganda, agitation, and organization, for breaking the whole thing up, bringing about chaos in the world which produced it, and replacing it with an organ of his own power.