761.00/7–1145: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Harriman) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 12—10:15 p.m.]
2507. Herewith my fourteenth interpretable report on developments in Soviet policy based on the press for the period from V–Day in Europe to July 1:
The first weeks of the post hostilities period were characterized by a marked reserve, if not uncertainty, in the tone of the Soviet press. It seemed as though the policy makers in Moscow, while clear enough on certain immediate objectives, such as Poland and the world security statute, still felt themselves unable to see clearly into the more distant future and were hesitant to commit the Soviet Union on overall, long term issues. The Soviet press accordingly abounded in hiatuses and was not devoid of contradictions. The general line remained that of the last months of hostilities, namely: That the world was divided into the partisans of peace, progress and democracy on the one hand and of Fascism and reaction on the other; that the Soviet Union was the spiritual and militant center for the first of these categories; that conversely all those who opposed the aims of the Soviet Union or showed lack of confidence in them automatically placed themselves in the camp of Fascism and reaction. In Soviet eyes the outside world could be neatly divided into black and white on the sole issue of attitude toward Russia, and all the principles of ethics with which humanity had occupied itself for centuries were now subordinated in Moscow to the single question of whether men, individually or collectively, were willing to accept all the policies of the Kremlin and to applaud consistently even those Soviet actions in which accepted principles were difficult to discern. Inevitably as the result of such intolerance, the forces of evil loomed large and menacing. It should be borne in mind that Soviet propaganda technique to unify the people of Russia has always been to point out dangers from real or imaginary common enemies.
1. Russian-American relations.
The question of Russian-American relations became a major topic in Soviet press during this period. Concern over prospects for political collaboration between the two great powers was expressed through publicizing of statements by various prominent Americans condemning current anti-Soviet propaganda campaign in America and affirming that Russian-American friendship is necessary condition of world peace. These materials tended to suggest that criticism of Russia emanated from malicious reactionaries who were taking advantage of [Page 866] Roosevelt’s death to attack his policies but that these elements were being repudiated in responsible circles. There was no suggestion that Soviet policies in Eastern Europe might have had any connection with these developments. On economic side threat of postwar business crisis and mass unemployment in America was emphasized at every opportunity, mainly on basis of materials lifted from American press. Connection between this press line and Soviet desire for American economic assistance was made explicit by Manui[l]sky18 in his speech in San Francisco urging trade with Soviet Union as solution to America’s unemployment problem.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sent Dept as 2507, repeated London as 353, Paris as 227, Stockholm as 38, Rome as 52, Cairo as 73, Ankara as 39, Chungking as 58, and paraphrase by mail to Murphy at Berlin.
- Dmitry Zakharovich Manuilsky, chief Ukrainian delegate to the United Nations Conference on International Organization at San Francisco, April 25–June 26, 1945.↩