711.61/416
The Chargé in Latvia (Cole) to the Acting Secretary of State
[Received December 5.]
Sir: I have the honor to enclose a translation in full40 of the leading editorial in the Moscow Izvestiya, organ of the Central Executive Committee of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, No. 282, of November 20, 1933, concerning the recognition of the Union by the United States. This editorial comment appeared somewhat later than might have been expected. The recognition, it is understood, was definitely settled in Washington, just before midnight on Thursday the 16th of November, which was already the early morning of Friday the 17th in Moscow. Consequently the first Moscow papers to carry the news were those of Saturday the 18th. The Izvestiya did not appear on Sunday the 19th, and consequently the Monday newspaper was the first in which the recognition could be commented upon after Saturday. The [Page 44] comment of the Pravda and other Soviet organs will be sent in a later despatch.40a
The editorial is entitled, “An Act of the Greatest International Importance,” and opens with a statement to that effect. The exchange of letters between the President and Mr. Litvinov closes a long period in which the Soviet Union has fought for normal diplomatic relations with the capitalist world surrounding it. The United States, the greatest capitalist power in the world, has at last been “compelled” to establish normal diplomatic relations. Despite the differences in principle between the social structure of the U.S.S.R. and that in capitalist countries there were fewer contradictions between the United States and the U.S.S.R. than in other capitalist powers. “Precisely because the United States is the greatest capitalist power it has emphasized most sharply the differences between the two social systems and attempted to act as the representative of capitalist interests in general. It was helped in this by its territorial vastness and its considerable relative importance in the world, all of which enabled it to nurse the hope that it could manage to get along without the establishment of normal relations with the U.S.S.R.” This reinforced its belief that “it did not need to cooperate with the U.S.S.R. and that the lack of normal relations with it could not cause any serious injury to this great trans-Atlantic power.” The European nations needed the Soviet Union and its markets. “The European powers came into contact daily with us in deciding European and Near Eastern questions.” They could not get along without normal diplomatic relations. The ideas of the leaders of American capitalism that they could carry on a policy based on a refusal to maintain normal diplomatic relations with the U.S.S.R. were “purely imaginary.” The economic crisis has so shaken the whole world that not even the strongest capitalist power can solve its economic problems in isolation. The extraordinary growth of the productive powers of the U.S.S.R. has “compelled” even the most stubborn representatives of capitalism to wonder whether they could get along without economic relations with such a great and growing economic power as the Land of the Soviets. The crisis in the United States has created a wide and deep mental ferment in that country. Great interest in the “Soviet experiment,” attempts to introduce planned economy, and to regulate the contradictions of monopolistic capital now going on in the United States, have all been a factor in “that complex which has compelled the White House to remove the juridical barrier between the United States and the U.S.S.R.”
In his first press interview Mr. Litvinov correctly pointed out that non-recognition of the U. S. S. R. did not destroy the fact that very [Page 45] close economic, cultural, and political connections have already been established between the United States and the U. S. S. R. “Similarly, the expectation that the United States could avoid contact with the U. S. S. R. in the sphere of political relationships has likewise turned out to be an illusion.” Referring to the “Conference on Disarmament,” the editorial states that “Naval and land armaments are bound up with each other in the most intimate manner. The problem of European debts due to the United States is bound up with the question of armaments. And that question cannot be settled without the U. S. S. R. The United States had to cooperate at the Disarmament Conferences with the Soviet Union, which it did not recognize.”
The editorial then states that “the U. S. S. R. is not only a great European, but also a great Asiatic power.” As a Pacific power, the United States is a partner [with the U. S. S. R.]41 in all Asiatic questions and is interested in maintaining peace in Asia. “The United States could not continue its former policy of a refusal to establish normal relations with the U. S. S. R. without causing the greatest injury to itself and to the cause of peace.”
Recognition, the editorial continues, is thus an act of “greatest historical importance” and is the end of the struggle of the capitalist world to ignore the fact that the world at present consists of two systems, the capitalist and the socialist, and that the socialist system is on a legal equality with the capitalist.
A legal basis for economic relations has been established and for the further development of these relations. A diplomatic instrument has also been established for exchange of opinions, for co-ordinated action in all political questions in which both countries are interested. An understanding of mutual interests was the stimulus which prompted the American Government to overcome not only the traditional objections to recognition, but also difficulties arising out of a certain number of unsettled questions.
“The decision of the President of the United States, Franklin Roosevelt, is by no means a White House improvisation. It has been the result of the development of relations between the two countries and of that long drawn out struggle which the progressive elements of the American bourgeoisie had been carrying on for the recognition of the U. S. S. R., not to speak at all of those sections of the American people who sympathize with us in principle.” Soviet public opinion strove in every manner to come closer to the United States. This arose from the Soviet struggle to maintain peace. The establishment of normal diplomatic relations is “the greatest victory of our peace policy.” Soviet public opinion expects business relations between the two countries to increase. American “efficiency” according to Stalin [Page 46] in 1924, is an antidote to revolutionary inconstancy and fantastic inventiveness. Stalin, however, pointed out the danger of American efficiency degenerating into unprincipled money-making, and advocated that American efficiency should be united with the Russian revolutionary enthusiasm.
The President and Mr. Litvinov have accomplished a work which will undoubtedly strengthen peace and may decide more than one problem which has become impossible to postpone. Mutual relations between the two countries will develop on the basis of mutual respect and without interference by either country in the affairs of the other and on the basis of independent policy of both countries. There is one good side to the fact that the struggle for normal diplomatic relations lasted so long: “It has taught American public opinion to understand that it is not a question of the United States ‘helping’ the U. S. S. R. but of mutual benefit for two equal parties who have many interests in common and who, notwithstanding the different social systems, can cooperate with each other.”
The editorial thus turns on two principal ideas and one subsidiary. First, the growth of the Union’s economic and political importance “compelled” the United States to recognize it. This has as a corollary the statement that recognition does not indicate that the United States is extending a helping hand to the Union but that two equal partners will cooperate. Second, the idea of the importance of recognition in regard to Far Eastern affairs is mentioned, although only in passing. Emphasis of this point would seem to have been almost studiously avoided although a hint of what may have been in the writer’s mind concerning these matters is to be found in the statement that recognition will assist in the settlement of “more than one problem that can no longer be postponed.”
Respectfully yours,