« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
resolutions before us. I think in one of these resolutions, I think 163, there are phrases to the effect, "it shall be” so and so. For myself, I have no desire to have our country to say to the world, “This, that and the other must be." I think we must bring the other nations along with us. They may have better suggestions than we have. That is my first reaction to that phrase.
Mr. EASTMAN. I agree to that in principle, only I would add that I think a greater danger is that in the attempt to conciliate those other nations we would leave the thing a little bit fuzzy. That to me is the great danger. That is where the Communist leaders are so far ahead of us. They think in hard, clear, crystal terms because they are fanatical about all the facts. We have a sense of the fluidity of fact, and the indefiniteness of the future. We are more intelligent in one way, but in another way that is our weakness. We are inclined to let it all be a little bit fuzzy. I think that is a much greater danger than the one you have mentioned, although they both exist.
Mrs. BOLTON. If we can find a path between the two which will be clear, for our people and the people of democratic countries, something of spiritual value that will bring them an equal zeal for peace that has been instilled into the 20,000,000 Communists, we shall have something worth while.
Mr. EASTMAN. This really sets a goal. The ideal of a world federation of democratic nations to prevent war is an ideal really capable of arousing all the enthusiasm of people who love liberty, and believe in consecration to it.
At the present, everything on our side is a little vague and on the defensive. It is negative. This is something positive. So much so that if it were not so absolutely right, you would feel that you had to put it forward anyway, to gather the forces against what is threatening us.
Mrs. BOLTON. Is it not possible that those of the 20,000,000 world Communists who live among us are doing a very good job, keeping our thinking a bit fuzzy, in suggesting that the Christian spirit is one which must always be tolerant and understanding and bring the other boy in? Is that not a possible fact?
Mr. EASTMAN. I do not think I can agree with that.
Mrs. BOLTON. Is it not possible that the Communists are using us, as Christians, to keep us thinking that after all they will come in someday?
Mr. EASTMAN. Oh, yes. I beg your pardon. I agree with you absolutely. I did not understand.
Mrs. BOLTON. Thank you Mr. Eastman, for your very clear picture of the situation which you feel we must get over to our people. They do not understand it, they do not know it and will not accept it, up to this point. The moment they do, they will chide us for not being there ahead of them; will they not?
Mr. EASTMAN. I think so, yes.
Mr. JONKMAN. Do you not think, Mr. Eastman, that within the United States within the last year, the United Nations Organization has created a tremendous change of feeling toward the communistic background? In other words, communism is repudiated to a far greater extent at the present time than it was a year or a year and a half ago?
Mr. EASTMAN. It is. That is without doubt. But if the United Nations has done much toward that, whether it has or not, I am not sure.
I think the actions of the Soviet Union have done it and not the United Nations. But if the United Nations has done it a little bit, that is not a reason for not wishing it could do it a lot more, as I think it could under this change.
Mr. JONKMAN. In the United Nations, the Communists are beginning to sound the real philosophy ?
Mr. EASTMAN. I think a better way to show that philosophy would be to make a big appropriation to spread the report of this subcommittee abroad among the American people. I do not believe they get it through the newspaper reports or the radio reports of the United Nations. What you suggest does not seem to me to rank up in size with the reasons for adopting this measure. It does not seem to me to be of the same importance or weight.
Mr. JONKMAN. Would you say it is true that they are?
Mr. EASTMAN. I am not sure that perhaps our thinking might not have been further along had there been no United Nations. I do not believe what you say is absolutely self-evident, but even if the UN has done a little, it would do a lot more if it took a step which shows we are really defending democracy and would say to them: "Here! Come in or stay out."
Mr. JONKMAN. Do you not think that in the forum of the United Nations, Gromyko and Vishinsky have exposed to the American people what sovietism really' is, how antagonistic it is and how destructive it is?
Mr. EASTMAN. There you have to divide the American people. You see, what they are doing is assembling the discontented, the neurotic, the crazy, the oppressed, the people who cannot think, but want a change and believe in their lying propaganda about a classless society. Those are the people they are appealing to—and they are appealing to the people who are filled with hate and just want to denounce everybody. In a situation where agitators are advocating a revolution, you cannot speak of the American people as a bloc. They are splitting up this bloc, and one of the instruments they are doing it with is the United Nations as at present constituted.
Mr. JONKMAN. Of course, you have reference to what we might call the lunatic fringe.
Mr. EASTMAN. It is a lunatic fringe if you call Hitler and his following a lunatic fringe. He got the whole mass of the German people behind him before he got through. He started out a lunatic.
Mr. JONKMAN. Thank you. Chairman EATON. Mr. Judd. Mr. Judd. Is it true or is it not true that while the actions of Messrs. Vishinsky, Molotov, and so forth have alienated further a great many people who probably originally were not favorably inclined toward
the Soviets; on the other hand, they have fanned to fever heat the devotion of millions of Americans ?
Mr. EASTMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. JUDD. Therefore, balancing the good results against the bad, the chances are they would not have done it as they did unless they realized there would be tremendous benefit for them?
Mr. EASTMAN. That is what I was trying to say. I think that is unquestionable.
Mr. JUDD. Frequently it is said that Mr. Stalin has abandoned communism as the political or economic philosophy which it was under Marx and Lenin, and now uses it merely as the instrument of one nation's foreign policy. What is your comment on that?
Mr. EASTMAN. That is not true. I think Stalin could not abandon it temperamentally because he got his education as a Marxist and a Leninist and he does not know the world in any other terms. He cannot think in any other terms. That is what everything is to him. The position which has been given to him happens to fall in with his natural instinct, which is an enormous thirst for power and an enormous love for intrigue.
While I think Stalin is absolutely devoted to the world revolution, so long as he is on the crest of the wave, I think may be if a revolution, say, in France or Germany or America were in the wind, and were such that Stalin would lose his leadership if it were successful, he might not go through with it. It may be that his love of power must combine with his belief. However, as long as they are working together, he does not waiver an inch.
Mr. JUDD. You do not agree, then, with those who say that Stalin now is primarily a Russian nationalist and not an international Communist?
Mr. EASTMAN. No. Those two things have been right together from the beginning. The minute the Russian revolution occurred, the leaders identified the world revolution with the wonderful Russian revolutionary knowledge and understanding of Marxism.
And this identification was extremely trying to me. You know, I tried for awhile to believe in that system, and I went over there, after defending it here, as a sort of special guest of the Bolsheviks. I was never a member of the Communist Party, but, as I had defended the revolution in two left-wing socialist magazines in the United States, they sort of took me in and I was quite close to some of the leaders. I was present at a congress of the international. I was even present at a convention of the Russian Communist Party, which is a very extraordinary thing for a foreigner.
However, I always maintained a detached and critical position in regard to the movement. I never was a fellow traveler in the sense that I backed up the party line where I thought it was wrong. I retained the right to criticize. And this Russian nationalism, mixed up with what I had conceived as international socialism, evoked the one adverse criticism I wrote in my magazine before I left America. I attacked the Bolsheviks on their policy of organizing the international in such a way that the Russian party dominated it. They have never yielded from that position at all. They believe in the world revolution, but they believe it is going to be controlled from Moscowand it is, if we are not careful.
Mr. Judd. You spoke of the necessity for replacing the present group, Stalin and his colleagues who control Russia. Do you or do you not think there is any possible hope of replacing them unless and until there are checks—we will not sa yo "defeats," but at least "checks" to their successful expansion?
Mr. EASTMAN. No, I say they must be stopped and compelled to retreat in some sense diplomatically before they will be weakened enough so that the opposition in Russia will begin to function.
Mr. Judd. Is that one of the things that would lead you to support Resolution 163? Several times you spoke of Resolution 59, which is the one which merely calls for an international conference under article 109 to see if we cannot get agreement to strengthen the United Nations so it can establish law, interpret it, and enforce it for relations between nations.
The other resolution is 163 which has specific proposals for strengthening it so there would be a chance of it checking further Russian victories.
That is the basic reason why you favor that? Mr. EASTMAN. Absolutely; yes, sir. It is not only that it checks them, but it also moves toward a solution of the second great world problem that we are confronted with; one is to check this totalitarian revolution, the other is to form a world federation that will really prevent war.
I got those two numbers mixed up and I am not sure I have been quite clear. Resolution 163 is what I have been advocating. It checks them and checks them in a way everybody will understand.
Mr. Judd. In other words, it is not enough to cast out an evil system, we must put a better one in its place. We can perhaps defeat it by force of arms but we cannot overcome it except by a better system?
Mr. EASTMAN. That is right.
Mr. JUD. Do you approve of the proposal to have a western union, made up of five nations, in what essentially is a defensive military alliance with United States' support? Do you approve of that?
Mr. EASTMAN. Yes.
Mr. Judd. Do you see any reason why that should not be expanded ? Do you see any disadvantages in expanding it to include all the countries who will come along?
Mr. EASTMAN. I think it should be expanded.
Mr. Judd. The more nations you have, the more you reduce the chance of attack?
Mr. EASTMAN. You must get the double democratic world aware of the facts and into an organization.
Mr. JUDD. Do you think Stalin thinks, as you said Hitler thought, that we are a degenerate people and that, for example, even if our President and Secretary of State tried to get some changes in the Charter our American people would not support them? Do you think that Stalin thinks that?
Mr. EASTMAN. Yes, he does.
Mr. Judd. Then, if the Congress of the United States were to pass a resolution, which it would not do unless it represented the majority sentiment of the United States because that is the way we operate, a resolution crystallizing for our own administration and for the world, including the Soviets, the overwhelming sentiment developed in these
hearings for strengthening the United Nations structure-do you think that would hinder or strengthen the hand of our Executive in dealing with these nations?
Mr. EASTMAN. It would strengthen it enormously.
Mr. Judd. The question was raised by my friend from Michigan that veto measures had not gotten Russia anywhere; that during 3 years' time they had vetoed repeatedly but had not succeeded in accomplishing what they wanted in the veto.
Is it not true that they accomplished this: They bought 3 years of precious time with those vetoes?
Mr. EASTMAN. That is right.
Mr. Judd. From your study of communism and Marxist techniques and tactics, would you say that usually when they go out and shout for lower prices or ask for a strike to reduce prices and thereby cause the prices to go higher, they actually do achieve their real objective which is confusion and dissatisfaction?
Mr. EASTMAN. Confusion, chaos, and sabotage of our whole system; yes.
Mr. Judd. Did you not mention the quotation from Stalin in which he said, “The mightiest ally of Soviet Russia, is to have” he did not say "peace, prosperity, and contentment”; but—"strife, conflicts, and wars in every caplitalistic country"?
Mr. EASTMAN. That is right.
Mr. Judd. So while the vetoes did not accomplish what to the uninitiated it looked as if they were trying to accomplish, they did in fact accomplish what they really were after-delay and confusion, reducing the effectiveness of the United Nations?
Mr. EASTMAN. Yes.
Mr. JUDD. You spoke of General Marshall's statement in which he said he hoped to dissipate their misconceptions regarding us and the possibility of the two systems living together in one world,
and thereby to get agreement with them? Do you think that for a high official of the United States Government to say in public that we should not do anything until we get agreement with the Soviets improves or decreases the chance of getting that agreement?
Mr. EASTMAN. I think it decreases them in a terrifying degree. As I say, I think this is terrifying.
Mr. Judd. Does it not just telĩ them that all they have to do is sit there until the world goes to hell, and we have told them in advance we won't do anything?
Mr. EASTMAN. Yes.
Mr. JONKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that question is proper.
Mr. Judd. You do not think it is proper?
The REPORTER (reading): Does it not just tell them that all they have to do is sit there until the world goes to hell, and we have told them in advance we won't do anything?
Mr. JONKMAN. It is based on the assumption that they are just sitting there not doing anything, which just is not true.