On Peaceful Coexistence

On Peaceful Coexistence

(This article was written by Comrade N. S. Khrushchov at the request of the editors of the American journal, Foreign Affairs and was published in that journal)

I have been told that the question of peaceful coexiste nce of states with different social systems is uppermost today in the minds of many Americans—and not only Americans. The question of coexistence, particularly in our day, interests literally every man and woman. We all know well that tremendous changes have taken place in the world.

Gone, indeed, are the days when it took weeks to cross the ocean from one continent to the other or when a trip from Europe to America, or from Asia to Africa, was an extremely complicated undertaking. By the scale of mode rn technology our planet is not very big; in this sense, it has even become somewhat congested. And if in our daily life it is a matter of considerable importance to est ablish normal relations with our neighbours in a densely inhabited settlement, this is so much the more necessary in the relations between states, especially states belonging to different social systems.

You may like your neighbour or dislike him. You are not obliged to be friends with him or visit him. But you live side by side, and what can you do if neither you nor he has any desire to quit the old home and move to anothe r town? All the more so in relations between states. It would be unreasonable to assume that you can make it so hot for your undesirable neighbour that he will decide to move to Mars or Venus. And vice versa, of course.

What else can be done? There may be two ways out: either war -and war in the age of rocketry and H-bombs is fraught with the most dire consequences for all nations- or peaceful coexistence. Whether you like your neighb our or not, nothing can be done about it, you have to find some way of getting on with him, for we live on one planet.

But the very concept of peaceful coexistence, it is said, frightens certain people who have lost the habit of trusti ng their neighbours and who see a double bottom in every suitcase, by its alleged complexity. On hearing the word “coexistence,” people of this kind begin to juggle about with it one way and another, sizing it up and applying various yardsticks to it—could it be a fraud? or a trap? Does coexistence, perhaps, signify a division of the world into areas separated by high fences, which do not comm unicate with each other at all? And what is going to happen behind those fences?

The more such questions are piled up artificially by the “cold war” warriors, the more difficult it is for the ordin ary man to make head or tail of them. It would therefore be timely to divest the essence of this question of all superfluous elements and to attempt to look soberly at the most pressing problem of our day—the problem of peaceful coexistence.

One need not delve deeply into history to appreciate how important it is for mankind to ensure peaceful coexiste nce. And let it be said in passing that the Europeans might have benefited a great deal in their day if, instead of organizing senseless crusades which invariably ended in failure, they had established peaceful relations with the differently-minded peoples of the Moslem East.

Let us turn to the facts of the relatively recent past when the watershed between states was no longer Constit uted of distinctions in religious creeds and customs, but of much deeper differences of principle in the choice of social systems. This new situation arose on the threshold of the 1920s when, to the booming of the guns of the Russ ian cruiser Aurora which had joined the insurrectionist workers and peasants, a new and unprecedented social system, a state of workers and peasants, came into the world.

Its appearance was met with the disgruntled outcries of those who naïvely believed the capitalist system to be eternal and immutable. Some even tried to strangle the unwanted infant in the cradle. Everybody knows how this ended—our people voted with arms in hand for Soviet power, and it came to stay. And even then, in 1920, replyi ng to a question of the correspondent of the New York Evening Journal as to what basis there could be for peace between Soviet Russia and America, V. I. Lenin said: “Let the American imperialists not touch us. We won’t touch them.” 

From its very inception the Soviet state proclaimed peaceful coexistence as the basic principle of its foreign policy. The fact that the very first political act of the Soviet state was the decree on peace, the decree on stopp ing the bloody war, is not to be considered an accident.

What is the policy of peaceful coexistence?
In its simplest expression it signifies the repudiation of war as a means of solving controversial issues. Howe ver, this does not by any means exhaust the concept of peaceful coexistence. Apart from commitment to nona ggression, it also presupposes an obligation on the part of all states to desist from violating each other’s territor ial integrity and sovereignty in any form and under any pretext whatsoever. The principle of peaceful coexistence signifies a renunciation of interference in the internal aff airs of other countries with the object of altering their political system or mode of life, or for any other motives. The doctrine of peaceful coexistence also presupposes that political and economic relations between countries are to be based upon complete equality of the parties conc erned, and upon mutual benefit.

It is quite often said in the West that peaceful coexiste nce is nothing but a tactical move of the socialist states. There is not a grain of truth in such allegations.

Our desire for peace and peaceful coexistence is not prompted by any time-serving or tactical considerations. It springs from the very nature of socialist society in which there are no classes or social groups interested in profiting by means of war or by seizing and enslaving fore ign territories. The Soviet Union and the other socialist countries, thanks to their socialist system, have an unlimi ted home market and, for this reason, they have no need to pursue an expansionist policy of conquest and subord ination of other countries to their influence.

It is the people who determine the destiny of the soc ialist countries. The socialist countries are ruled by the working people themselves—the workers and the peasa nts, the people who themselves create all the material and spiritual values of society. And working people cann ot want war. For to them war spells grief and tears, death, devastation and misery. Ordinary people have no need for war.

Contrary to what certain propagandists hostile to us say, the coexistence of states with different social systems does not mean that they will only fence themselves off from one another by a high wall and undertake the mutual obligation not to throw stones over the wall and not to pour dirt upon each other. No, peaceful coexistence does not merely mean cohabiting side by side in the absence of war but with the constantly remaining threat of its breaking out in the future. Peaceful coexistence can and should develop into peaceful competition in the best poss ible satisfaction of all man’s needs.

We say to the leaders of the capitalist states: Let us try out in practice whose system is better, let us comp ete without war. That is much better than competing in who produces more arms and who smashes whom. We stand, and always will stand, for such competition as will help to raise the well-being of the peoples to a higher level.

The principle of peaceful competition does not at all demand that a country abandon its accepted system and ideology. It goes without saying that the acceptance of this principle cannot lead to the immediate end of disputes and contradictions, which are inevitable between count ries adhering to different social systems. But the main thing is ensured: the states which have decided to take the path of peaceful coexistence repudiate the use of force in any form and agree on the peaceful adjustment of possible disputes and conflicts with due regard for the mutual interests of the parties concerned. And in our age of H-bomb and atomic techniques this is the main thing of interest to every man.

Sceptical about the idea of peaceful competition, U.S. Vice-President R. Nixon, in his speech over the Soviet radio and television in August 1959, attempted to find a contradiction between the Soviet people’s professions of their readiness to coexist peacefully with the capitalist states and the slogans posted in the shops of our fact ories calling for higher labour productivity in order to ens ure the speediest victory of communism.

This is not the first time we have heard representatives of the bourgeois countries reason in this manner. They say: The Soviet leaders maintain that they are for peacef ul coexistence. At the same time they declare that they are fighting for communism, and go so far as to say that communism will be victorious in all countries. How can there be peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union if it fights for communism?

People who treat the question in this way mix things up, wilfully or not, by confusing the problems of ideologi cal struggle with the question of relations between states. Those indulging in this sort of confusion are most proba bly guided by a desire to cast aspersions upon the Communists of the Soviet Union and to represent them as the advocates of aggressive actions. This, however, is very unwise.

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union at its 20th Congress made it perfectly clear and obvious that the allegations that the Soviet Union intends to overthrow capi talism in other countries by “exporting” revolution arc absolutely groundless. I cannot refrain from reminding you of my words at the 20th Congress. They ran as foll ows: “It goes without saying that among us Communists there are no adherents of capitalism. But this does not mean at all that we have interfered or plan to interfere in the internal affairs of those countries where capitalism exists. Romain Rolland was right when he said that ‘freed om is not brought in from abroad in baggage trains like the Bourbons.’ It is ridiculous to think that revolutions are made to order.”

We Communists believe that the idea of communism will ultimately triumph throughout the world, just as it has triumphed in our country, in China, and in many other states. Many readers of Foreign Affairs will probably disa gree with us. Perhaps they think that it is the idea of capitalism that will ultimately triumph. It is their right to think so. We may argue, we may disagree with one another. The main thing is to keep to the sphere of ideologi cal struggle, without resorting to arms in order to prove that one is right. The point is that with military techn iques what they are today, there are now no spots in the world that are out of reach. Should a world war break out, no country will be able to shut itself off in any way from a crushing blow.

We believe that ultimately that system will be victoriO us on the globe which will offer the nations greater opportunities for improving their material and spiritual life. It is socialism that creates unprecedentedly great prosp ects for the inexhaustible creative enthusiasm of the masses, for a genuine flourishing of science and culture, for the realization of man’s longing for a happy life, a life without destitute and unemployed people, for happy childh ood and tranquil old age, for the realization of the most audacious and ambitious human projects, for man’s right to create in a truly free manner in the interests of the people.

But when we say that in the competition between the two systems, the capitalist and the socialist, our system will win, this does not signify by any means, of course, that we shall achieve victory by interfering in the internal affairs of the capitalist countries.

Our confidence in the victory of communism is of a diff erent kind. It is based on a knowledge of the laws governi ng the development of society. Just as in its time capit alism, as the more progressive system, took the place of feudalism, so will capitalism be inevitably replaced by communism—the more progressive and more just social system. We are confident of the victory of the socialist system because it is more progressive than the capitalist system. Soviet power has been in existence for only a little more than 40 years, and during these years we have gone through two of the worst wars, repulsing the attacks of enemies who attempted to strangle us. In the United States capitalism has been in existence for more than a century and a half, and, moreover, the history of the United States has developed in such a way that its enem ies have never once landed on American territory.

Yet the dynamics of the development of the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. are such that the 42-year-old Land of the Soviets is already able to challenge the 150-year-old capi talist state to economic competition; furthermore, the most far-sighted American leaders are admitting that the Soviet Union is fast catching up with the United States and will ultimately outstrip it. Watching the progress of this competition, anyone can judge which is the better system, and we believe that in the long run all the peoples will embark on the path of struggle for the building of soc ialist society.

You disagree with us? Prove in practice that your system is superior and more efficacious, that it is capable of ens uring a higher degree of prosperity for the people than the socialist system, that under capitalism man can be happier than under socialism. It is impossible to prove this. I have no other explanation for the fact that talk of violently “rolling back” communism never ceases in the West. Not long ago the U.S. Senate and House of Repres entatives saw fit to pass a resolution calling for the “libe ration” of the socialist countries allegedly enslaved by communism and, moreover, of a number of Union Republ ics constituting part of the Soviet Union. The authors of the resolution call for the “liberation” of the Ukraine, Byel orussia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and even some “Ural Area.”

I would not be telling the full truth if I did not say that the adoption of this ill-starred resolution was regarded by the Soviet people as an act of provocation. Personally, I agree with this appraisal.

It would be interesting to see, incidentally, how the authors of this resolution would react if the parliament of Mexico, for instance, were to pass a resolution demandi ng that Texas, Arizona and California be “liberated from American slavery”? Apparently they have never pondered such a question, which is very regrettable. Sometimes comparisons help to understand the essence of a matter.

Travelling through the Soviet Union, prominent Americ an statesmen and public leaders have had every opport unity to convince themselves that there is no hope of sowing strife between Soviet people and the Communist Party and the Soviet Government, and of influencing them to rebel against communism. But how, then, are we to explain the unceasing attempts to revive the policy of “rolling back” communism? What do they have in mind? Armed intervention in the internal affairs of the socialist countries? But in the West as well as in the East people are fully aware that under the conditions of modern milit ary techniques such actions are fraught with immediate and relentless retaliation.

So we come back to what we started with. In our day there are only two ways—peaceful coexistence or the most destructive war in history. There is no third way.

The problem of peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems has become particularly pressing in view of the fact that after the Second World War the development of relations between states has entered a new phase. Now we have approached a period in the life of mankind when there is a real chance of exc luding war once and for all from the life of society.
How can this be done?

The new alignment of international forces which has developed since the Second World War offers ground for the assertion that a new world war is no longer fatally inevitable, that it can be averted.

First, today not only all the socialist states, but many countries in Asia and Africa which have embarked upon the road of independent national statehood, and many other states outside the aggressive military groupings, are actively fighting for peace.

Secondly, the peace policy enjoys the powerful support of the broad masses of people all over the world.

Thirdly, the peaceful socialist states are in possession of very potent material means, which cannot but have a deterring effect upon the aggressors.

Prior to the Second World War, the U.S.S.R. was the only socialist country, with only about 17 per cent of the area, about 9 per cent of the population, and about 10 per cent of the output of the world. At present, the socialist countries cover about one-fourth of the area of the globe inhabited by one-third of the world population, and their industrial output accounts for about one-third of the world output.

This is precisely the explanation of the indisputable fact that throughout the recent years, seats of war arising now in one and now in another part of the globe—in the Near East and in Europe, in the Far East and in Southeast Asia —were nipped in the bud.

And what lies ahead?
As a result of the fulfilment and overfulfilment of the Seven-Year Plan of Economic Development of the U.S.S.R., and of the plans of the other socialist countries of Europe and Asia, the countries of the socialist system will account for somewhat more than half of the world output. Their economic power will grow immeasurably, and this will serve to an even greater extent to consolidate world peace:

the material might and moral influence of the peace- loving states will be so great that any bellicose militarist will have to think ten times before risking war. It is the good fortune of mankind that there has emerged a comm unity of socialist states which are not interested in new wars, because to build socialism and communism the soc ialist countries need peace. Today the community of soc ialist countries which has sprung up on the basis of complete equality holds such a position in the developm ent of all branches of economy, science and culture as to be able to exert an influence towards preventing the outbreak of new world wars.

Hence, we are already in a practical sense near to that stage in the life of humanity when nothing will prevent peop le from devoting themselves wholly to peaceful labour. when war will be wholly excluded from the life of society.

But if we say that there is no fatal inevitability of war at present. this by no means signifies that we can rest on our laurels, fold our arms and bask in the sun in the hope that an end has been put to wars once and for all. Those in the West who believe that war is to their benefit have not yet abandoned their schemes. They control conside rable material forces, military and political levers, and there is no guarantee that some tragic day they will not attempt to set theni in motion. All the more necessary is it to continue an active struggle in order that the policy of peaceful coexistence may triumph throughout the world not in words but in deeds.

Of much importance, of course, is the fact that this policy has in our day won not only the widest moral app roval but also international legal recognition. The count ries of the socialist camp in their relations with the capi talist states are guided precisely by this policy. The princ iples of peaceful coexistence are reflected in the decis ions of the Bandung Conference of Asian and African countries. Furthermore, many countries of Europe, Asia and Africa have solemnly proclaimed this principle as the basis of their foreign policy. Lastly, the idea of peaceful coexistence was unanimously supported in the decisions of the twelfth and thirteenth sessions of the United Nations General Assembly.

In our view, peaceful coexistence can become lasting only if the good declarations in favour of peace are supp orted by active measures on the part of the governments and peoples of all countries. As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, it has already done a good deal in this res pect, and I am able to share some experiences with you.

As far back as March 12, 1951, the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. adopted a “Law on the Defence of Peace,” stating:
“(1) Propaganda of war, in whatever form it may be conducted, undermines the cause of peace, creates the menace of a new war and therefore constitutes a grave crime against humanity.
“(2) Persons guilty of the propaganda of war shall he brought to court and tried as heinous criminals.”

Further, the Soviet Union has in -ecent years unilatera lly reduced its Armed Forces by more than 2,000,000 men. The funds released as a result have been used to develop the economy and further improve the living and cultural standards of the Soviet people.

The Soviet Union has shut down its bases on the territ ories of other states.
The Soviet Union unilaterally discontinued tests of atomic weapons and refrained from conducting them until it became utterly clear that the Western Powers ref used to follow our example and were continuing the exp losions.

The Soviet Union has repeatedly submitted detailed and perfectly realistic proposals for disarmament, meeti ng the positions of the Western Powers halfway. But to solve the disarmament problem it is necessary for our Western partners to agree and to show a desire to meet us halfway too. This is just what was lacking.

When it became clear that it was very difficult under these conditions to solve the complex disarmament probl em immediately, we proposed another concrete idea to our partners: Let us concentrate our attention on those problems which lend themselves most easily to a solution; let us undertake initial, partial steps on which the views of the parties concerned have been brought closer together.

It is perfectly clear that today the discofltiflUdtlofl of atomic and hydrogen weapons tests is foremost among these questions. Some progress has been achieved in this matter, and this justifies the hope that an agreement on the discontinuation of nuclear weapons tests will shortly be reached. Implementation of this measure will, of course, be an important step towards solving the disariuiament problem and the banning of nuclear weapons in general.

Attributing much importance to contacts and intercourse between statesmen of all countries, the Soviet Government a few years ago proposed that an East-West Heads of Government Conference be convened in order to come to terms—taking into account present-day realities and guided by the spirit of mutual understanding—on concrete measures, the realization of which would help to relax international tension.

We proposed that this conference consider those intern ational questions for the settlement of which realistic prerequisites already existed. As a first step toward such a settlement, we proposed to the Powers concerned that a peace treaty be concluded with Germany and that West Berlin be granted the status of a demilitarized free city. I want to emphasize particularly that we were guided prim arily by the desire to write finis to the survivals of the Second World War.

We regard the elimination of the survivals of the Seco nd World War and the conclusion of a peace treaty with the two German states—the German Democratic Republic and the German Federal Republic—as the question of questions.

Indeed, 14 years have already passed since the war ende d, but the German people are still without a peace treaty. The delay of a peace settlement with Germany has afforde d wide scope for the activities of the West-German militarists and revanchists. They have already proclaimed their aggressive plans; for instance, they are laying claim to lands in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Of course, the German revanchists are thinking not only of a march to the East; they also know the way to the West. In the Second World War, history tells us, the Hitlerites occupied Western Europe before turning against the Soviet Union.

But will the direction in which the present-day German revenge-seekers choose to strike first make things any easier for the European peoples in the event of a general war breaking out in Europe? The lessons of history must not be ignored. That often ends in tragedy.

Some say: the Soviet people are unduly sensitive. Can one assume that West Germany is now in a position to precipitate another world war?

Those who put the question thus forget that West Germ any is at present acting in the world arena within the military North-Atlantic bloc and not alone. She plays a leading role in this bloc. More than that, life has shown that the North-Atlantic Alliance is being gradually conv erted into an instrument of the German militarists, which makes it easier for them to carry out aggressive plans. It is not at all out of the question, therefore, that West Germ any, taking advantage of her position in the North- Atlantic Alliance, may provoke hostilities in order to draw her allies into them and plunge the whole world into the chasm of a devastating war.

All this indicates how timely and realistic are the prop osals of the Soviet Government for the conclusion of a peace treaty with Germany and for bringing the situation in West Berlin back to normal.

And yet, some of the Western opponents of the Soviet proposals say that if the Soviet Union really stands for peaceful coexistence it should even be asked to commit itself to the preservation of the existing status quo. Others argue that if the Western Powers agree to conclude a peace treaty with the two German states that would amount to a retreat on their part, and the Soviet Union should make some compensation for this “retreat.”

There are no grounds whatever for these assertions, in our opinion. It is a matter of doing away with the surviva ls of the Second World War and ot concluding a peace treaty. And any possibility of someone gaining and someo ne losing, of someone acquiring and of someone making concessions, is out of the question here. All the parties concerned acquire a stronger foundation in the shape of a peace treaty for the maintenance of peace in Europe and throughout the world. Does this not accord with the intere sts of all the peoples?

At times, and of late epecially, some Western spokesm en have gone so far as to allege that doing away with the survivals of the Second World War is a step which would intensify rather than ease international tension. It is hard to believe that allegations of this kind have been made without ulterior motives, when attempts are being made to present the policy of the U.S.S.R., which is int ended to secure a lasting and stable peace, in a distorted light by alleging that it all but leads to war.

It seems to us that the Soviet position on the German question corresponds most of all to reality.
Now, it seems, no sober-minded leader in the West is inclined any longer to advance the unrealistic demand for the so-called reunification of Germany before the conclus ion of a peace treaty, since more and more political leade rs are coming to understand that reunification in the cond itions now obtaining is a process which depends upon the Germans themselves and not upon any outside interf erence. We should proceed from the obvious fact that two German states exist and that the Germans themselves must decide how they want to live. Inasmuch as these two states, the German Democratic Republic and the Germ an Federal Republic, do exist, the peace treaty should be concluded with them, because any further procrastinat ion and postponement of this exceptionally important act not only sustains the abnormal situation in Europe but also leads to its further deterioration.

As for Germany’s unity, I am convinced that Germany will be united sooner or later. However, before this mom ent comes—for no one can foretell when it will come— no attempts should he made to interfere from outside in this internal process, to sustain the state of war which is fraught with many grave dangers and surprises for peace in Europe and throughout the world. The desire to preserve the peace and to prevent another war should outw eigh all other considerations of statesmen, irrespective of their mode of thinking. The Gordian knot must be cut: the peace treaty must be achieied if we do not want to play with fire—.-with the destinies of millions upon mill ions of people.

In this connection we cannot but also mention the quest ion of West Berlin. It is commonly known that the German revanchists have made West Berlin the base for their constant espionage and subversive activities directed tow ards provoking war. We resolutely reject all attempts to ascribe to the Soviet Union the intention of seizing West Berlin and infringing upon the right of the populat ion in that part of the city to preserve its present way of life. On the contrary, in demanding the normalization of the situation in West Berlin, we have proposed that it be converted into a free city and that the preservation there of the way of life and of the social order which suits the West-Berlin inhabitants, be guaranteed by ourselves jointly with the Western countries. This shows that the attitude of the Government of the Soviet Union and that of the Western Governments, judging by their statements, coincide on this question. They, and we too, stand for the independence of West Berlin and for the preservation there of the existing way of life.

It is, therefore, only necessary to overcome the difficult ies born of the “cold war” in order to find the way to an agreement on West Berlin and on the wider question of concluding a peace treaty with the two German states. This is the way to promote an easing of international tens ion and further peaceful coexistence. It would strengthen confidence between states and assist in the gradual rem oval of unfriendliness and suspicion in international relations.

Implementation of the Soviet proposals would not inj ure the interests of the Western Powers and would not give one-sided advantages to anybody. At the same time, a settlement of the German question would prevent a dang erous development of events in Europe, eliminate one of the main causes of international tension and create favourable prospects for anadjustment of other internat ional issues.

The proposals of the Soviet Union were discussed at the Foreign Ministers Conference in Geneva. The Minist ers did not succeed in reaching an agreement, but the Geneva conference did accomplish a great deal of useful work. The positions of the two sides were definitely brought closer together and the possibility of an agreem ent on some questions has become apparent.

At the same time, we still have substantial differences on a number of questions. I am deeply convinced that they are not fundamental differences, not differences on which agreement is impossible. If we still have differences and have not reached agreement on a number of important questions, it is—as we believe with adequate grounds— a result of the concessions which are being made by the Western Powers to Chancellor Adenauer, who is pursuing a militarist policy, the policy of the German revanchists. This is a case of the United States, Britain and France dangerously abetting Chancellor Adenauer. It would be far better if the NATO allies of West Germany persuaded Chancellor Adenauer in the interests of the maintenance of peace, that his policy imperils the cause of peace and that it may ultimately end in irreparable disaster for West Germany.

All this emphasizes again that the representatives of the states concerned must do still more work in order to arrive at mutually acceptable solutions.

I believe that my forthcoming trip to the United States in September and the subsequent visit of US. President Eisenhower to the Soviet Union will afford the possibility for a useful exchange of opinions, for finding a common tongue and a common understanding of the questions that have to be settled.
We are thus prepared, now as before, to do everything we possibly can in order that the relations between the Soviet Union and other countries, and, in particular, the relations between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A., should rest upon a foundation of friendship and that they should fully correspond to the principles of peaceful coexistence.

I should like to repeat what I said at a recent press conference in Moscow: “If Soviet-American relations bec ome brighter, that will not fail to bring about an improvem ent in the relations with other states and will help to scatter the gloomy clouds in other parts of the globe as well. Naturally, we want friendship not only with the U.S.A., but also with the friends of the U.S.A. At the same time, we want the U.S.A. to have good relations not only with us, but with our friends as well.”

What is still needed to make the principles of peaceful coexistence an unshakable international standard and daily practice in the relations between the West and East?

Of course, different answers may be given to this quest ion. But to be quite frank, the following still has to be said: Everybody should understand the irrevocable fact that the historic process is irreversible. It is impossible to bring back yesterday. It is time to understand that the world of the twentieth century is not the world of the nineteenth century, that two diametrically opposite social and economic systems exist side by side in the world today, and that the socialist system, in spite of all the attacks upon it, has grown so strong, has developed into such a force, as to make any return to the past impossible.

Real facts of life in the last ten years have shown conv incingly that the policy of “rolling back” communism can do no more than poison the international atmosphere, heighten the tension between states and work in favour of the “cold war.” Neither its inspirers nor those who conduct it can turn back the course of history and restore capitali sm in the socialist countries.

We have always considered the Americans realistic people. All the more are we astonished to find that U.S. leaders still number in their midst individuals who stick to the policy of ‘rolling back” communism despite its Obvious failure. But is it not high time to take a sober view of things and to draw conclusions from the lessons of the last 15 years? Is it not yet clear to everybody that consistent adherence to the policy of peaceful coexistence would make it possible to improve the international situad on, to bring about a drastic cut in military expenditures and to release vast material resources for more sensible purposes?

The well-known British scientist, J. Bernal, recently cited figures to show that average annual expenditures for military purposes throughout the world between 1950 and 1957 amount to the huge sum of about $90,000 million. How many factories, houses, schools, hospitals and librari es could have been built everywhere with the funds now spent on the preparation of another war! And how rapid could be the economic progress of the underdeveloped countries if we converted to these purposes at least some of the means which are now being spent on war purposes.

One cannot help seeing that the policy of peaceful coe xistence acquires a firm foundation only in the event of extensive and absolutely unrestricted international trade. It may be said without exaggeration that there is no good basis for improving relations between our countries other than the development of international trade.

If the principle of peaceful coexistence of states is to be adhered to not in words, but in deeds, it is perfectly obvious that no ideological differences should be an obs tacle to the development and extension of mutually adv antageous economic contacts, to the exchange of everyt hing produced by human genius in the sphere of peaceful branches of material production.

In this connection it may be recalled that soon after the birth of the Soviet state, back in the early 1920s, the Western countries, proceeding from considerations of economic interest, agreed to establish trade relations with our country despite the acutest ideological differences. Since then, excepting comparatively short periods, trade between the Soviet Union and capitalist states has kept on developing steadily. No ideological differences have prevented, for instance, a considerable extension of trade relations between the Soviet Union and Britain and other Western states in recent years.

We make no secret of our desire to establish normal commercial and business contacts without any restrict ions, without any discriminations, with the United States as well.

In June of last year the Soviet Government addressed itself to the Government of the United States with the proposal to develop economic and trade contacts between our two countries. We suggested an extensive and conc rete programme of developing Soviet-American trade on a mutually advantageous basis. The adoption of our prop osals would undoubtedly accord with the interests of both countries and their peoples. However, these proposa ls have not shown the desired development so far.

In striving to normalize trade relations with the Unite d States, the Soviet Union does not pursue any special interests. In our economic development we rely wholly on the internal forces of our country, on our own resources and possibilities. All our plans for further economic development are drawn up on the basis of our available possibilities. Just as in the past, we base these plans only on our own possibilities and forces. Irrespective of whethe r or not we shall trade with Western countries, the United States included, the implementation of our econ omic plans of peaceful construction will not in the least be delayed.

However, if we both want to improve relations between countries, all barriers in international trade must be rem oved. Those who want peaceful coexistence cannot but favour the development of commercial. economic and business contacts. Only on this basis can international aff airs develop normally.

Peaceful coexistence is the only way which is in keepi ng with the interests of all nations. To reject it would under existing conditions mean to doom the whole world to a terrible and destructive war, whereas it is quite poss ible to avoid it.

Can it be that mankind, which has advanced to a plane where it has proved capable of the greatest discoveries and has made its first steps into outer space, should not be able to use the colossal achievements of its genius for the establishment of a stable peace, for the good of man, rather than for the preparation of another war and for the destruction of all that has been created by his labour over many millenniums? Reason refuses to believe this. It protests.

Soviet people have stated, and declare again, that they do not want war. If the Soviet Union and the countries friendly to it are not attacked, we shall never use any weapons either against the United States or against any other countries. We do not want any horrors of war, des truction, suffering and death for ourselves or for any other peoples. We say this not because we fear anyone. Together with our friends, we are united and stronger than ever. But precisely because of that do we say that war can and should be prevented. Precisely because we want to rid mankind of war, do we urge the Western Powers to peacef ul and noble competition. We say to all: Let us prove to each other the advantages of one’s own system not with fists, not by war, but by peaceful economic competit ion in conditions of peaceful coexistence.

As for the social system in a country, that is the domest ic affair of its people. We have always stood, and stand today, for non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. We have always abided, and shall abide, by this standpoint. The question, for example, of what system shall exist in the United States or in other capitalist countries cannot be decided by other peoples or states. This

question can and will be decided only by the American people themselves, only by the people of each country. The existence of the Soviet Union and of the other socialist countries is a real fact. It is also a real fact that the United States of America and the other capitalist countries live in different social conditions, in the cond itions of capitalism. Then let us recognize this real sit uation and proceed from it in order not to go against rea lity, against life itself. Let us not try to change this situ ation by interference from without, by means of war -on the part of some states against other states. I repeat, there is only one road to peace, one way out of the existing tension-peaceful coexistence.

Read More

Speech At A Polish Embassy Reception

Speech At A Polish Embassy Reception

September 4, 1959

Dear Comrades, Friends, Ladies and Gentlemen,
We are grateful to our Polish friends and to the Polish Ambassador, Comrade Gede, for the invitation to this fest ive reception on the occasion of the opening of the Polish Industrial Exhibition in Moscow, and for the warm words of friendship addressed to the Soviet people, as the friend of Poland and of the Polish people. We take pleasure in the fact that the exhibition has been opened, and that pleasure is enhanced by the presence of our good friend, the head of the Polish Government, JOzef Cyrankiewicz, who has come to attend the opening. (Applause.)

We would have been even more pleased had our friend Wiadyslaw Gomulka also come for the opening of the exhib ition. (Applause.) But we consider that Wiadyslaw and JOzef are one and the same. (Voices: “Hear, hear!” App lause.) Both Comrade Gomulka and Comrade Cyrankiewicz are striving equally to strengthen the friendly relations bet ween our countries and also the personal relations between the leaders of our states. (Applause.) We appreciate this greatly. I don’t think Comrade Cyrankiewicz will take off ence. Indeed, it is very good that he has come, but it would have been still better had Comrade Gomulka come too. (Laughter, applause.) I hope our friends will not take this as a reproach. I am often in a similar position. One wants to do so much, to visit all our country’s friends, but there is a limit to human strength and possibilities. Although Comrade Gomulka is not present here, he is with us in spirit at this festive reception. (Applause.) Please convey to him our best wishes for good health. We wish him good health, and he himself will do all the rest. (Applause.)

We are proud of our friends, of our good neighbours, bec ause the exhibition which they have opened today in Mosc ow shows in the language of machine-tools, calico and other manufactured goods the achievements of the fratern al Polish people, the labour of Polish workers, the working peasants, the efforts of Polish engineers, scientists and int ellectuals. At the same time, the exhibition demonstrates the friendship of the peoples, the strength of the mighty socialist camp. (Applause.)

I don’t want to hurt the representatives of the capitalist countries. Why hurt them who are already hurt by God, representing a social system which is living out its day. (Applause.) The most we can do is pity them, because they have not yet realized their unfortunate plight. (Applause.)

We are proud of the achievements of socialism. Take any socialist country and see what it was like under capitalism and what it has become under socialism. (Applause.) It is not God that showers manna upon us, as the old religious legends say. We owe it all, all our achievements, to the work of free people. Yet people work in capitalist countries, too, and not less than in the socialist countries. But they feel the results of their work much better when they work in the socialist countries, since here they work for thems elves, for their own people. (Applause.)

Some representatives of capitalist countries present here do not like portraits of men with big beards (Khrushchov refers to the portraits of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels) or the portrait of the man with a small beard and a big bald spot (the portrait of V. I. Lenin). But we, the working people of socialist countries, owe our successes to these people, to the great teaching of Marx and Lenin. (App lause.)

More and more people in the world are realizing the advantages of the socialist system. But we do not want to impose our social system upon other countries by force. Why drag a man into paradise on a rope Let him grasp for himself that socialism delivers him from capitalist slavery. A sensible man who lives in poor conditions wants better conditions—he wants good conditions. All people on earth will come to realize the necessity of establishing the new socialist system of society. We say to the repres entatives of the capitalist world: Sooner or later you will realize that you are committing a great sin by upholding the capitalist system and opposing communism. But it is never too late to stop sinning.

There is a popular saying: “Every snipe praises its own swamp.” We Soviet people are extremely satisfied with our socialist system, we and our friends are satisfied with the situation existing in all the fraternal socialist countries. We are very satisfied. We have now exchanged views with Comrade Cyrankiewicz. We believe that today the relations of the Soviet Union with Poland, with the leaders of the Polish People’s Republic, are better than ever bef ore. (Applause.)

These relations are now broader, deeper and stronger than they have ever been in the past. In 1956 there was an episode which gave pleasure to immature people, peop le incapable of looking far ahead. But that was only an episode. Everything that clouded our relations, everything extraneous, has been eliminated. The dust, as it were, which prevents one from seeing things better, in their natural state, has been removed. We have removed the dust and now have the best, the most friendly, the most fraternal relations with the Polish people, with the Polish working people, with the Polish workers and peasants, with the polish United Workers’ Party. (Applause.)

We are proud of the successes of the Polish people, of the Polish workers and peasants. We are their class brothe rs. When I was a worker I had a job in a mine and worked with Polish comrades; T also worked with polish workers at a factory. We shared our joys and sorrows. The working people of our countries suffered want together, and fought together for our freedom against tsarist autocr acy, against the capitalists and landlords. Soviet sold iers and Poland’s sons fought selflessly together against fascist Germany. Together, we celebrated victory over fascism, and together we rejoice in the successes of our countries in building a new life. (Applause.)

We are following one road, the one shown by Marx, Engels and Lenin, and shall reach our cherished goal— communist society.

We are not asking the representatives of the capitalist countries to sympathize with us. If any of you do have any gleams of sympathy for our doctrine, you cannot say so because of your office, and will not applaud me. We understand your position. But it is useful to hear and learn. It may come in handy some day.

Dear friends, things are going well in all the socialist countries. We are now going through a good period when the ideas of peaceful coexistence are winning more and more supporters in the capitalist countries. Now even aggressive elements are beginning to recognize the necess ity of peaceful coexistence. How can it be otherwise? The socialist and capitalist countries are on one planet. True, we are now trying to fly to other planets, we want to reach the Sun and the Moon, but no one intends to move there. (Laughter, applause.)

I have heard the joke about my having already visited the Moon to choose suitable land for planting maize there. (Laughter.) In general, I don’t reject that idea. If there turns out to be suitable soil for maize on the ‘Moon, the idea could be considered. But on the whole, we rely firmly on our old Mother Earth. She can provide all people with everything necessary for their existence. All that the peop le need is to be able to work and live in peace—to work in order to improve their life and not to create means of exterminating human beings. This is exactly why we stand firmly for peaceful coexistence and are doing everything to achieve it.

As I have said already, the West is getting to unders tand the principles of peaceful coexistence more and more. But much still remains to be done in this respect, great patience needs to he shown and persistence in exp laining that there is no other way to prevent a new war except that of peaceful coexistence. We have enough patience. Life is on the upgrade. Each year yields a growth in our economy—our economy and culture are developing, so why should we not have patience? He runs out of patience who sees the water rising to his neck, and who cannot be patient. There is no need to point my finger at anyone.

Dear friends, allow me to propose a toast to unbreaka ble fraternal friendship between the peoples of the Sov iet Union and the Polish People’s Republic, to unbreaka ble fraternal friendship between all socialist countries. At the same time, we should like to be on friendly terms with all peoples. We want to forge friendship between all peoples in order to ensure lasting peace on earth. (App lause. The Polish toast, “Sto lat,” is made.)

Some capitalist spokesmen reproach me for having allegedly said that we shall bury capitalism. I have already said that I want just one thing—that I should not be misunderstood. The imperialists are digging their own grave. Such is their nature. Karl Marx explained long ago how this is being done, but they still do not understand it. I want to say only one thing: Bear in mind that we shall not dig a grave for you physically. If you like the capitali st system so much, live under capitalism to your heart’s content as long as you can. But how long you will be able to, I cannot tell. We do not interfere in your internal aff airs. Do not interfere in our way of life, in our internal affairs, either. Let us better compete in the output per head of population of, say, this excellent ham to which our Polish friends have treated us today. If capitalism produces more, that means it will live longer; if socialism does, that means capitalism has not long to live.

The social system which provides the best conditions for people’s life and development is the system that will be chosen by the peoples. Which path people will follow in each country will be decided by its people. (Voices: “Hear, hear!”)

The highest living standard in the capitalist countries has been attained by the United States. But don’t boast about it, Messrs. Americans, for we shall overtake and surp ass you. (Applause.) We are challenging the capitalist count ries to peaceful competition. That is fair competition. And if anything threatens them, it is only our victory in this peaceful competition. No rockets, no aircraft and no other military weapons threaten the capitalist countries from our quarter. The Soviet Union will never use weapons of any kind against other states, providing no armed attack is made upon us or upon our friends. (Applause.)

But, in economic development, in raising the living standard of the people, in reducing the working day and in providing man with all the good things of life, we will show you, capitalist gentlemen, where to get off, as the saying goes.

Is this bad? In the peaceful competition between the two systems there will be no loss of life, no blood will be shed in wars between states. On the contrary, the ordinary people will only gain by it, because less funds will be spent on the arms race, taxes will go down, and product ion will be entirely converted to peaceful purposes.

In conclusion, may I propose a toast to the Polish people, to the heroic Polish working class which has produced such glorious revolutionaries as Felix Dzerzhinsky and Vyacheslav Menzhinsky, who fought selflessly for the freedom, for the victory of the working class in our countries.

I raise a toast to eternal, indissoluble friendship bet ween the Polish and Soviet peoples!
Here’s to the Government of the Polish People’s Republ ic, to the head of the Polish Government, our dear friend JOzef Cyrankiewicz, who is present here! (Applause.)

To the Polish United Workers’ Party, the leading force of the Polish people; to the Central Committee of the Poli sh United Workers’ Party; to the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party, our true and very close friend, Comrade Wiadyslaw Gomulka! (Applause.)

To friendship between all nations, to world peace! (Prolonged applause.)

Read More

Speech At The Opening Of The Polish Industrial Exhibition In Moscow

SPEECH AT THE OPENING OF THE POLISH INDUSTRIAL EXHIBITION IN MOSCOW

September .4, 1959

Dear Comrade Cyrankiewicz,
Dear Comrades and Friends,
Allow me to thank you heartily for the invitation to take part in the opening of the Polish Industrial Exhibit ion. On behalf of the Central Committee of the Comm unist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Governm ent I congratulate you and all our ‘Polish friends heartily on this notable event.

Allow me also to bid hearty welcome to the members of the Honorary Exhibition Committee—Comrades Stefan Jedrychowski, Adam Rapacki, Witold Trampczyñ ski, Eugeniusz Stawiñski, Mieczyslaw Lesz, and the other members of the Polish delegation who have come to Mosc ow with Comrade Cyrankiewicz.

We were pleased to learn that the exhibition which opens in Moscow today is the biggest of all the Polish exhibitions ever organized outside Poland. This exhibition will enable tens and hundreds of thousands of Soviet people to get a graphic idea of the remarkable fruits of the creative labour of Polish workers, engineers, technic ians and scientists who have devoted their talent and skill to the building of their new, socialist homel and.

We are sure that the workers of our industry and all those who visit the exhibition will find many things of interest among its exhibits and will be able to derive much that is useful from the experience of our Polish friends. The Polish Industrial Exhibition furnishes added conv incing proof that a people which has succeeded in libera ting itself from the fetters of capitalism and has become free, is capable of overcoming its previous economic backw ardness in a short historical period and embarking Ofl the path of rapid industrial growth. In the years of peop le’s power, the Polish working people have built up a modern industry and are now making such rapid and many-sided technical progress as has advanced the Polish People’s Republic to a place among the foremost Industriall y developed European countries.

Growth of socialist industry on the basis of scientific and technical achievements is characteristic of all the countries which embarked on the socialist path, regardless of whether they had a developed industry in the past, as, for example, Czechoslovakia and the German Democ ratic Republic, or did not, as Bulgaria and Albania.

The Communist and Workers’ Parties and the governm ents of all socialist countries attach prime importance to technical progress in all branches of the national economy. And this is only natural, because successful construction of socialism and communism is possible only on the basis of continuous scientific and technical improvement and development. It is scientific and technical progress in ind ustry and agriculture that leads to a rapid rise in the productivity of social labour, to improvement in quality and to reduction in the costs of production, and that, in the long run, furnishes the necessary conditions for buildi ng the material and technical basis of socialism and comm unism. Furthermore, experience shows that the stronge r the positions of socialism in a country, the more favoura ble the conditions and possibilities for scientific and technical development, for the further improvement of ind ustrial production. Both these phenomena are indissolub ly interconnected.

We know that there is technical progress in capitalist countries as well. But there it occurs exclusively in the interests of monopoly profit and leads to the greater exp loitation of working people.

Technical progress in the socialist countries is a diff erent thing. In socialist countries, up-to-date machinery and the improvement of production techniques lighten man’s labour and make it possible to improve the living standard continuously. This is the fundamental difference between the capitalist countries and the great community of socialist states as to the effects of technical progress on the condition of the working people.

Comrades, the Polish Industrial Exhibition is also a fine example of the close economic co-operation that exists between the Soviet Union and People’s Poland. Soviet- Polish economic relations, like relations between all the countries of the socialist camp, are based on principles of fraternal mutual assistance and support. They constit ute one of the strong links in the system of economic coo peration of the entire socialist camp. This multiplies the fruitfulness of economic relations between our countries enormously, and makes it easier for us to solve our econ omic problems.

The working people of the Soviet Union and of the Poli sh People’s Republic are united by a strong and sincere friendship. The peoples of our countries cherish this friendship as something sacred and develop it constantly. The opening of the Polish Industrial Exhibition has brought back vivid memories of my cordial meetings and talks with Polish working people during the recent visit of the Soviet Party and Government Delegation to People’s Poland. The warmth and good feeling with which the Polish workers, peasants and intelligentsia welcomed US are forever impressed upon our minds. We had exceptiona lly hearty meetings with the leaders of the Polish United Workers’ Party and of the Government of the Republic, with our dear friend, Wiadyslaw Gomulka, the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party. Our tour of Poland convinced us once more that the fraternal friendship between the Soviet and Polish peoples is unshakable.

Dear friends, we can note with satisfaction that the principles of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems are winning more and more followers in the capitalist countries. Peaceful coexistence presupposes the greatest possible extension of economic, cultural and other relations between different countries.

Of particular importance are economic, and above all commercial, ties between countries, regardless of their soc ial system. The development of these ties, extension of trade between countries on the basis of mutual advantage. help to ease international tension, eliminate distrust among nations and improve political relations between countries with different social systems. Mutually profitable trade is of great economic importance to all countries. The nations are vitally interested that the peaceful economy of states should develop, that the living and cultural standards of people should rise, and that resources should be spent on this, and not be squandered on the arms race. The Soviet Union and all the socialist countries are working untiringly for an end to the “cold war,” for a reduction of armaments and the maintenance of lasting peace.

We are gratified to note that of late exhibitions of fore ign countries are held in Moscow more and more frequently. The Soviet Union, too, holds its exhibitions in many countries. This is a very good thing. Several foreign exhibitions are open in our country today. They differ from each other in. content and the nature of their exhibits, and represent different socio-ecOflOmic systems. But all of them have one important feature in common—all of them prom ote stronger economic and cultural bonds, better mutual understanding, and serve to bring peoples together. And today the peoples of all countries of the globe have no more important and urgent task than strengthening peace and friendship throughout the world.

We are convinced that the Polish Industrial Exhibition will serve this noble purpose. Dear friends, allow me from the bottom of my heart to wish great success to your industrial exhibition.

Read More

Speech At A Reception Given By The Presidium Of The C.C. C.P.S.U

Speech At A Reception Given By The Presidium Of The C.C. C.P.S.U. And The U.S.S.R. Council Of Ministers For Graduates Of Soviet Military Academies

September 3, 1959

Dear Comrades,
In recent years our meetings in the Kremlin with gradua tes of military Academies have become traditional. It gives me great pleasure today, on behalf of the Central Committee of our Party and the Soviet Government, to extend hearty greetings to a new detachment of officers graduated from the Academies and assigned to posts of service in the army. (Applause.)

I also very sincerely welcome the officers of the Peop le’s Democracies graduated from military Academies, who are present here, and wish them great success in strengthening the fraternal armies which together with the Armed Forces of the U.S.S.R. constitute the powerful bulw ark of the whole socialist camp. (Applause.)

On this auspicious occasion I congratulate the instruct ors, professors and the entire permanent staff of the Academies on turning out a new Contingent of highly- trained officers for our glorious Armed Forces. (Applause.)

Comrades, graduation from a higher educational establ ishment is a great event in your lives. To use the milit ary idiom, it may be said that this is a sort of initial posit ion from which, having gained knowledge and strength, aman embarks upon the principal, most mature stage of his life.
In the Academies you were given a good theoretical groundwork. Extensive opportunities are now presenting themselves to you for applying your knowledge and abilit y in so complex and honourable a pursuit as service in the Armed Forces of the Soviet Union.

You are going into practical work at the wonderful time when our entire people, having rallied all their gigant ic powers, are solving with enormous enthusiasm the hist orical problems set by the 21st Congress of the Party.

The enthusiastic and selfless labour of the working class, the collective farmers and the Soviet intelligentsia is a guarantee that the grand tasks of the Seven-Year Plan will not only be fulfilled, but also overfulfilled.

The Decisions of the June Plenary Session of the Cent ral Committee of the Party are also of great importance in carrying out the tremendous programme charted by the 21st Party Congress. Further acceleration of technical progress is the main factor in building up the material and technical basis of communism. That is the horse we are counting on in our economic competition with the United States. And there is no doubt whatsoever that by cont inuously improving our technical resources, by comprehens ive mechanization and automation in all branches of production, we shall win this competition in the specified time or even sooner.

Our Party and its Central Committee are promoting further progress in industry and agriculture in order to improve the life of the Soviet people and further to cons olidate the might of our socialist Homeland.

The Soviet Union has now gathered such speed in its economic advance and the development of science and cult ure, and has attained such splendid results, that people in the capitalist world are amazed and especially those who have had a chance to see our Soviet reality with their Own eyes.

As for us, Soviet people, we are satisfied that, while the successes of communist construction in the Soviet

Union cause our friends legitimate pride, even the frenzied militarists in the West are compelled to act more soberly.

While guiding the efforts of the Soviet people towards solving the historical problems of communist construction, our Party and its Central Committee display constant conc ern about strengthening peace and the security of our country.

We firmly believe that peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems is practicable, and, for our part, are doing all in our power to develop international co-operation and deliver humanity from the threat of a new world war.

The efforts exerted in this direction by the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries with the support of the peace-loving forces in all countries, are producing benef icial results. International relations show signs of improvem ent. The ice of “cold war” is beginning to thaw. Great possibilities for a further easing of world tension and for improving Soviet-American relations are offered by the forthcoming exchange of visits by the heads of governm ent of the Soviet Union and the United States. We shall do our best for these visits to be as beneficial as possible to the peoples of our countries and to the strengthening of peace and international co-operation.

It should be borne in mind, however, that even the most active peaceful foreign policy is not enough in itself to ensure our country’s security. For this purpose we must also strengthen the defence capacity of our country in every possible way, until an international disarmament agreement is reached.

We all see that the international standing of the Soviet Union is improving continuously. Thanks to the emerg ence and consolidation of the world socialist system, our country is no longer encircled by capitalist states. The forces of peace and democracy are growing and becoming increasingly active each day. We have every reason to state that as the Soviet Union advances towards communism, and the entire socialist camp gains added• strength, real Possibilities will arise for excluding war as a method of settling international issues.

But none of this must dull our attention to questions of strengthening the security of our country and enhanci ng the might of our Armed Forces. We must not ignore the fact that aggressive forces still exist and operate in the world, because there exists the medium that nurtures them imperialism. Nor should we overlook such unpleasa nt facts as the continuing arms race, the many military bases around the Soviet Union, and that the West-German revanchists are being given atomic weapons.

Under these conditions we are obliged to strengthen our Armed Forces in every way, and to keep them in a state of top preparedness. The Communist Party and the Soviet Government are showing constant concern about strengthening our country’s defence capacity and are doi ng everything necessary to maintain the Armed Forces at the peak of modern requirements.

We are not strengthening our Army and Navy and supp lying them with the latest equipment for the purpose of attacking other countries, or to impose our way of life on other peoples. Our country’s Armed Forces are called upon to protect the peaceful constructive labour of the Soviet people, who are building communism. This is their historical mission. To be worthy of this lofty mission is a great honour for every Soviet soldier.

We are building communism in the concert of socialist states. All the countries of the socialist camp are marchi ng with us in close and unbreakable formation. The sociali st countries have established very close co-operation in solving the problems of economic and cultural construct ion.

We are also united in the matter of strengthening the defences of our countries against attack by imperialist agg ressors. This unity is also symbolized by tonight’s gathe ring, which is attended by graduates from our Academies officers of the Soviet Army and officers of the armies of the People’s Democracies.

To strengthen co-operation with the armies of the frat ernal countries, to be true to our international duty is a sacred obligation for every member of our Armed Forces.

Our army is strong because it is a genuinely people’s army, because it personifies the unity of Soviet society and the friendship of the peoples of our country. These are its greatest advantages, which the armies of capitalist countries do not, and cannot, have. It is the honourable duty of Soviet soldiers untiringly to strengthen their ties with the people, always to maintain the high prestige of our army among the working people, and to justify with honour their high trust through selfless service to our country.

Our Armed Forces are accomplishing their mission succ essfully, because the Communist Party is the organizer and inspirer of their victories.

The Decisions of the October Plenary Session of the C.C. C.P.S.U. (1957) and the subsequent joint harmonious work of the officers and political workers in carrying these Decisions into practice, have had a favourable effect on the battle preparedness of our Armed Forces.

We must persist in our work of strengthening Party inf luence upon all aspects of Army and Navy life and imp rove in every way the functioning of our Party organizat ions.

The principal part in solving the great and honourable problems facing the Soviet Army and Navy, is played by our officers. The Communist Party and Soviet Governm ent have placed on them the full burden of responsibility for training and educating the effectives. It is only natural that commanders and senior officers will be able to cope with this responsibility only by skilful collaboration with the Party organizations and close contact with the mass of Communists and all the effectives.

The high ideological awareness of the Soviet soldiers and their conviction in the rightness and triumph of our cause are a mighty weapon which imparts great and inv incible power to our army. Well-organized ideological and educational work with the effectives is a decisive fact or in further enhancing the power of our Armed Forces.

We are living at a time of stupendous technical progr ess, and this also applies to the means of warfare. In these circumstances, an officer is required, as never before, cont inuously to improve his knowledge. Otherwise even an honours diploma will not save him from failure. An off icer must have a good knowledge of the rapidly-developi ng techniques. Moreover, he must not be a specialist in just one particular branch of the service, but also possess an extensive range of knowledge. It is very important that you creatively apply the knowledge you have acquired in the Academies. Officers are therefore required to be alw ays active and to constantly display initiative.

I should also like to advise you, now that you have become officers, to try and win prestige among your subo rdinates. The faith of the men in their commander is a great force. When a soldier respects his officer he will carry out his orders better and more diligently.

Bear in mind that prestige is won primarily by the officer himself. It is attained by a profound knowledge of his duties, faultless behaviour, concern for his subordinates and permanent, intimate connections with the masses of soldiers.

Allow me, in conclusion, once more to congratulate you sincerely on your graduation from the Academies and to wish you the best of health and success in your military service.

Long live our glorious Armed Forces and their officers! (Stormy applause.) Long live the Soviet people, who are confidently adv ancing along the path to communism! (Stormy applause.) Long live the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the organizer and inspirer of all our victories! (Stormy, prol onged applause. All rise.)

Read More

The Ideas Of Peaceful, Coexistence Will Triumph

The Ideas Of Peaceful, Coexistence Will Triumph

Comrades, the problem that interests and agitates all people today is that of ensuring world peace. It is rightly considered to be the main international problem.

What is the present-day international situation? How do we appraise it? We believe that the international situa tion, if we evaluate it by the chief factor—the preservat ion of world peace—is not so bad, or, to be more exact, even good.

But, of course, we must not forget that military blocs exist just the same and that there are still people who are trying to strengthen and extend these military blocs. And what does that actually mean? It means greater military expenditures and a stockpiling and improvement of the armaments of countries that are members of these blocs. As long as this unprecedented arms race continues, there is a serious danger that even the least miscalculation by the statesmen of one country or another may lead to the outbreak of a new war. This is why we cannot afford to be carefree. We must be vigilant and take due measures to guarantee the security of our country.

The Soviet Government has exerted great efforts to achieve an easing of international tension. In recent years we have reduced our armed forces by 2,140,000 men and have shut down our military bases in foreign countries. In doing so, we hoped other states would follow suit, but, regrettably our hopes were not justified. On the contrary, the governments of a number of Western countries ded ared that they will carry on the arms race, extend their military bases and strengthen their military blocs. In other words, they stick to their “cold war” views, and have encircled the Soviet Union with their military bases.

Despite all these negative factors, we regard the intern ational situation as not bad. Why? Is this not contradict ory? No, it is not. Although the inveterate militarists have, apparently, not relinquished their attempts to try their “luck” in a military venture against the socialist countries, the fact of the matter is that the number of the advocates of such ventures is decreasing each year. Even many diehard imperialists are coming to realize that to employ military means against the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries is now very risky, and dangerous. It cuts both ways. Some of the dyed-in-the-wool militarists acknowledge that if they unleash a war they may thems elves be destroyed in it.

What makes them draw such conclusions? It is the growing might of the socialist camp. The socialist count ries are rapidly developing their economy and culture and raising the living standard of the people.

The idea of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems is winning increasing numbers of adhere nts all over the world. The attention of the people of the whole world is now focused on the problem of relaxi ng international tension and doing away with the “cold war.” This is why the news about the exchange of visits between the heads of government of the Soviet Union and the United States has roused such a ready and broad res ponse.

We have arranged with D. Eisenhower, President of the United States, for an exchange of Visits. It won’t be long before I leave for the U.S.A. I shall arrive there on Sept ember 15. Later, the President of the U.S.A. will visit the Soviet Union. At present the Soviet Union’s relations with the US.A. and with other capitalist countries ar somewhat better than they were before.

In February our country was visited by the Prime Mini ster of Great Britain, Harold Macmillan. After his visit to the Soviet Union and the exchange of views which I had with him on different questions of interest to both our countries, Soviet-British relations began to improve perceptibly. We concluded a trade agreement with Brita in on mutually-advantageous terms, and are now trading quite successfully under the terms of this agreement. We are also doing business with other capitalist countries— Prance, Italy and West Germany—and compared with past years our trade with them has increased.

Our contacts and relations with other countries in the fields of culture, science and art are rapidly expanding. There is an active exchange of different delegations. The number of visits of business people from foreign count ries, including the U.S.A., to our country has increased.

Our country was visited by Adlai Stevenson and Averell Harriman, who are prominent American political leaders, by Mr. Cyrus Eaton, the prominent American manufact urer, a group of Governors, and many others.

On the other hand, members of the Soviet Government have been to the U.S.A. A. I. Mikoyan visited that country and F. R. Kozlov went there for the opening of the Soviet Exhibition. The leading Soviet statesmen had very frank and useful talks with American statesmen. There is every indication that these talks are yielding favourable results.

Recently, the Vice-President of the U.S.A., R. Nixon, came to the Soviet Union for the opening of the American Exhibition in Moscow. We gave Mr. Nixon every opport unity of acquainting himself with our country and its people. To our regret, he had very little time, and since our country is so vast it is impossible to acquaint oneself with it in a few days. We had rather detailed talks with Mr. Nixon. He met many Soviet people. This warrants the hope that he must now have a better understanding of us, of our people.

It is a matter of regret that in his speeches about the Soviet Union Mr. Nixon continues to adhere to an erron eous viewpoint. For example, upon his return to the U.S.A. he stated that despite the propaganda conducted against the U.S.A. in the U.S.S.R., the Soviet people were friendly to America. Mr. Nixon ostensibly arrived at this conclusion after his visit to the U.S.S.R. Probably, the purp ose of this is to impress upon the Americans that the Soviet Government has one policy with respect to the U.S.A., while the Soviet people hold a different opinion.

It is absolutely wrong to state that there has been any propaganda in the Soviet Union against the U.S.A. I say this now, and I shall say it when I come to the U.S.A. No propaganda against the U.S.A. has ever been conducte d in the U.S.S.R. We have conducted -and will conduct- propaganda only against militarists, against sabre-ratt ling generals, and against monopolists who urge continued “cold war.” In the Soviet Union the press, and the statesmen, and all Soviet people, have held forth against them. But nobody in the U.S.S.R. has ever said anything against the U.S.A. as a country, or against the American people. We have never had such propaganda, and never will. (Applause.)

Quite the contrary. We have always maintained that the American people, like our Soviet people, like all peop les, want peace. Not only the working class and the farmers, but also broad sections of businessmen and int ellectuals in the U.S.A. do not share the views of the militarists, of the “cold war” warriors, and oppose the policy “from positions of strength.” It is only these latt er people who are afraid of the least breath of fresh air that may dispel the international tension, who fear that armaments will be reduced and that this will decrease the profitable orders to the arms industry. Wasn’t it this fear that affected the stock exchange when news of the exc hange of visits between the head of the Soviet Governm ent and D. Eisenhower, the President of the U.S.A., was received?

Mr. Nixon is deeply mistaken in his reasoning about the Soviet Government and the Soviet people. He does not know our people. During his visit to the U.S.S.R. he was accorded friendly treatment and shown the respect due to the representative of a country with which the Soviet Union wants to have good relations. This does not mean at all that anyone in our country shares Mr. Nixon’s pol itical views.

It is customary for our people to receive the guests of their Government with respect. And that is what they did everywhere, in the hope that such visits enhance the possibilities of better mutual understanding, of relaxing the tension and ensuring peace between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. In our country there are no differences—nor can there be any—between the people and the Government on these or other questions. I shall not exaggerate if I say that any country can well envy the close unity that obtains in our country between the people, the Government and the Communist Party. And let no one look for any rifts between the people and the Soviet Government—it would be wasted effort! (Stormy applause.)

A few days ago I made myself familiar with the speech Mr. Nixon delivered to the Congress of the American Leg ion. it contained statements about the Soviet Union which cannot be left unanswered. When he was here in the Soviet Union, I told him frankly that the Soviet people did not recognize the former Nixon. We had known him as an advocate of MacCarthyiSm. Then his speeches began to show signs of a correct understanding of the present-day scene and of the possible ways out of the situation. Mr. Nixon expressed the same sober judgernents also during our talks in Moscow. I even told him on one occasion that we understood his present standpoint and that it coincided in many respects with what we ourselves had said about the necessity for relaxing international tension.

That was the Nixon we knew in Moscow during our talks. But what has happened after his departure? Now Mr. Nixon is apologizing, as it were, for the statements he has recently made in the U.S.S.R. and resorting to lang uage typical of the reactionary MacCarthyists, repeating timeworn phrases about the danger of “communist rule over all the people of the world.”

It seems to us that the “spirit of MacCarthyism” should not be revived if we are sincerely striving for a relaxation of tension and for an improvement in Soviet- American relations. But Mr. Nixon appears to think diff erently. He said in the same speech that “the Communist Party in the United States, like all the Communist Parties throughout the world, is directed and controlled from Moscow and has in the past and will in the future engage in espionage and subversion in order to serve the intere sts of the communist governments wherever they are opposed to those of the United States or the other free nations.”

These are old and hackneyed inventions calculated to intimidate inexperienced people and to incite them against the Soviet Union. What facts has Mr. Nixon on this score? None whatever, because there aren’t, and cannot be, any. Of course, it would be better if such statements did not recur. Their sole object is to maintain the “cold war” and preserve the tension in international affairs.

I can’t help broaching one more statement frequently repeated by many Western political leaders. Speaking of the capitalist states, these men call them “free societies” and the “free world,” and apparently they place all the countries with another way of life under the head of “nonf ree world.” These statements are made to dupe the masses. But life shows them to be false and totally groundless. Hundreds of millions of people regard the socialist way of life as the most fully corresponding to the vital interests of the peoples and, hence, as the freest. And no one will convince them of the contrary. (Applause.)

Some gentlemen apparently identify Spain with the so- called “free world.” Yet, it is very well known that the present Spanish rulers seized power by rebelling against a legitimate democratically-elected republican government. They came to power over mountains of corpses and streams of the Spanish people’s blood spilt by the fascists, and established a brutal dictatorship. Today, however, Franco is one of America’s allies. Everything is suppressed in Spain today. The people cannot even utter a sound of their own free will. That’s a far cry from freedom.

There are quite a few governments in other countries, which trample upon the rights of peoples and are based on the personal power of a brutal dictatorship.

I do not care to cite other examples, of which there are many. But if all this is the “free world,” then what is the “non-free world”? Can it be that the “free world” exists where the colonialists rule, where every human libe rty is suppressed and where there is not even a trace of democracy?
No, that is not how the peoples understand freedom. They see freedom where the governments are composed of men of labour, where the governments are accountable to the people and serve the interests of the people, where there is no exploitation of man by man and the people are—in deed and not just in word—the real masters of their fate.

Speaking of the situation in the socialist countries, it is there that the people have real freedom and democracy. Each country has its constitution, and the people elect their deputies, their representatives of power. The governm ents are accountable to the people’s parliaments, to the people themselves. The socialist countries base their entire policy on the vital interests of the people. They ensure genuine freedom, genuine equality of all citizens before the law, and a steady rise of the living standard. In these countries there are no exploiters and exploited, because all means of production belong to the people. What, then, can be loftier, more humane and freer than the socialist system? (Prolonged applause.)

We do not require the statesmen of the capitalist powe rs to think likewise. Let us rather recognize the fact that we have different ideas of freedom. If we let our feelings run away with us and keep wrangling about such matt ers on a government level, we shall only aggravate our differences and set peoples against each other.

We adhere firmly to the principles of peaceful coexiste nce. We say: Let us not interfere in each other’s internal affairs and let us not settle ideological differences and other issues by force of arms. If we come to an unders tanding on this basis, we shall easily find ways and means of ensuring peaceful coexistence. We shall then also find a common language in the controversial issues which complicate the whole situation and create the dang er of a new war. We shall then be able to come to terms on questions of disarmament, prohibition of nuclear weapo ns and all other questions which trouble the whole world. In that case we could ensure such conditions in which war would be excluded from the life of society.

Our Party, the Central Committee and the Soviet Gove rnment are firmly convinced that we have approached a period when this will become a fact. Every new achievem ent of the U.S.S.R. and the achievements of all the sociali st countries are bringing this time nearer. The idea of peaceful coexistence will triumph. As to the system— capitalist or socialist—that America, France and Britain should have, let the Americans, French and British decide this matter for themselves, it is their internal affair and we do not intend to impose our way of life on them.

All of us, and above all the statesmen of the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A., which are the strongest powers, should do their utmost to put an end to the “cold war,” the arms race and the policy “from positions of strength” with which the majority of the people in the United States and all countries are fed up. It is the duty of statesmen who appreciate the responsibility imposed upon them by the present crucial moment, to refrain from doing anything that may cast a shadow on the situation and heat it again. Reason rather than feelings should guide us forward to negotiations, to a search for mutually acceptable decis ions, to an easing of tension.

Communism has upheld its right to existence. To fight communism with guns and atomic bombs is, as 100 years of history have shown, an absolutely hopeless undertaki ng. If the Western leaders consider their philosophy viab le, let them prove it in practice. We do not want to force our philosophy or our way of life on anybody. Hence, we propose peaceful coexistence; let us compete in improvi ng the well-being of the peoples. Victory will rest with the ideology that will provide a better and freer life and ensure higher living standards and the best conditions for satisfying the people’s requirements.

If the leaders of the capitalist countries are so certain of the superiority of their philosophy, of their way of life, let them accept our challenge for peaceful competition. The U.S.A. has already attained a very high level of econ omic development. Today it has the highest production per head of population. It is under these conditions that we are challenging the U.S.A. to peaceful competition. We want to be worthy contenders in this competition. Let time, history, show what is better. Only he who is not sure that his views are right, who does not believe in his own system, will reject our challenge to peaceful compet ition. It follows that we propose peace, while those who advocate “cold war” are dragging us towards an aggravat ion of the situation, towards a continuation of the arms race. We, on the other hand, want complete disarmament, liquidation of the “cold war” and lasting peace for all mankind. (Applause.)

I have familiarized myself with the statement made by President Eisenhower at a press conference on August 25.

We are quite satisfied with this statement. It shows that Mr. Eisenhower is willing to co-operate in eliminating tension from international relations. We regard this as a good basis for the forthcoming fruitful exchange of opini ons with the President. We share his alarm and anxiety over the existence of unsolved international problems.

We attach great importance to the willingness voiced by Mr. Eisenhower “to negotiate realistically with the Soviets on any reasonable and mutually enforceable plan for general or special disarmament; to make a real beginn ing toward solving the problems of a divided Germany; and to help in reducing, otherwise, tensions in the world.”

It gives me particular pleasure to emphasize this, bec ause I believe the above statement to be deeply conside red and imbued with ideas which the President formed in preparing for the press conference. This means that the President has given these ideas ample thought and that he understands that the main thing today is to ensure world peace. In this respect we have no differences with the President, and I sincerely welcome his statement.

I must unfortunately observe that in answering journ alists’ questions the President has in some measure rep eated certain “cold war” expressions. I should like to believe that in this case the President merely gave their due to his former prejudices.

We are going to the U.S.A. with the best of intentions. I have already said this at the press conference in Mosc ow on August 5.

We want to do our best to end the state of “cold war” and thereby ease international tension and create condit ions for a quiet and peaceful life. Peaceful coexistence and charged, ready-to-be launched missiles on the territory of other states are incompatible things. When we speak of peaceful coexistence we mean creating the certainty in people that the war we do not have today, will not break out tomorrow or at any other date.

This is why we are ready to reduce armaments and to withdraw our troops from the G.D.R., Poland and Hungar y within our own borders if the Western Powers display the same willingness to withdraw their troops from foreign countries. If our Western partners are not ready yet to withdraw all their troops at once, let us agree on a gradu al withdrawal. We are ready to accept any effective control of arms reduction and withdrawal of troops if the Western Powers reciprocate and agree to closing down their military bases. But when they want to impose cont rols and place their controllers all over our country, while their bases round our country remain intact, it is not disarmament but an ultimatum. It is nothing but an attempt to impose unilateral terms which are of advant age only to those who wish to impose them, i.e., to place their controllers in our plants and factories, while encirc ling our country with bases and picking the time to attack us. Maybe they do not pursue such aims, but we cannot. regrettably, think otherwise when we are offered such terms.

Of course, we are not blind to the fact that there are quite a few differences between the Soviet Union and the United States. We do not deny this. But today the quest ion is whether we should leave these differences and do nothing to counteract their possible exacerbation, or whether we should search for ways and means of elimin ating them. The Soviet Union is ready to seek mutually- acceptable agreements on the most acute international problems. But if anybody ever laboured under the illusion that we would consent to such agreements at the price of relinquishing our state positions, of renouncing our princ iples, he would be sadly mistaken. Outstanding issues can and must be settled only with due consideration of the interests of all the states concerned, and the most urgent problems, those which impede a normalization of the international situation, should be solved first. We consider the conclusion of a German peace treaty to be at the head of the list, for it would normalize the situation in Europe, remove the barriers between the two German states and do away with the survivals of the occupation regime in West Berlin.

In the West very many people, from high-ranking statesmen of the NATO countries to persons of lower rank, speak on the one hand of wanting peace and wanting the ice to melt and a thaw to set in. Yet they say, on the other hand, that they will defend the freedom and wellb eing of the Berlin population. This is emphasized, for example, in the communiqué on the talks between the heads of government of the U.S.A. and the F.R.G. The communiqué reads that President Eisenhower confirmed “the pledge given by the United States and its allies to protect the freedom and welfare of Berlin.”

In point of fact, we are also in favour of this formula. The Soviet Union has proposed that West Berlin be made a free city, and we agree to take part in guaranteeing this free city’s freedom, well-being and independence. We agree to see to it that none of the existing conditions of life there are violated, that the population is able to choose its own form of government, that the relations of the free city of West Berlin with the Western and the Eastern countries is guaranteed, and that the city develops and prospers.

If the Western Powers sincerely wish to ensure the freedom and well-being of the Berlin population, this does not contradict our aims- it coincides with them.

Yesterday I received an answer from Herr Adenauer, Chancellor of the German Federal Republic, to my message of August 18, 1959. The first reading—and such docum ents, drawn up by experienced diplomats, have to be not only carefully read but also thoroughly studied to gain an understanding of what is written between the lines—I repeat, the first reading of this answer produces a favourable impression. To be sure, Herr Adenauer opens his message by expressing a certain discontent with our having allegedly violated our agreement and being the first to publish my message in the press. I should not like to enter upon mutual charges on this score, but in order to make things clear, to establish the truth, I deem it nece ssary to state the following:

Our message to Herr Adenauer was published in the Soviet press 8 days after it was delivered to the Governm ent of the F.R.G., and only after different newspapers in the Federal Republic began to write about it. The Soviet press did not print a single word about it, and not even about the fact that the message was sent, before the Germ an newspapers did. Hence, it was really the Governm ent of the F.R.G. and not the Government of the Soviet Union that first informed the press of our message and of its content. Since various statements concerning this message began to appear in the F.R.G. press, the Soviet Government decided to publish its full text to prevent false rumours.

Speaking about the substance of Herr Adenauer’s rep ly, we must note, in the first place, that its tone is more restrained and that in this respect it differs considerably from the previous documents of the Federal Government.

Herr Adenauer’s message broaches very important quest ions and expresses a desire for a better understanding of these acute questions in the interests of greater coo peration between our countries. If these words are foll owed by deeds, it may be assumed that we shall succeed in removing the line that divides us in the discussion of urgent questions of international relations and in making definite progress towards relaxing international tension and improving relations between the U.S.S.R. and the F.R.G.

It should be noted that in the message these questions are broached very briefly and generally, and we should like the Government of the F.R.G. to state in greater detail its proposals for the solution of such important questions as disarmament, removal of the survivals of the war, and development of co-operation between our countries. Provide d the other side is willing, these matters are not insolva ble in our opinion. They can be solved if the Western Powers sincerely want a peaceful settlement of the urgent international issues.

Of course, I shall gladly reply to Herr Adenauer’s message. I should like to believe that it is not the sort of docu ment that says one thing and means another. I am in the habit of thinking the way ordinary people think, who take the direct meaning of words in good faith, and do not look for some other meaning contained only between the lines. I should like to believe that the Government of the F.R.G. really wants to contribute to an easing of int ernational tension.

Our adversaries frequently charge that the Soviet Union does not observe international agreements. This is not true. Only those who deliberately misrepresent the facts can say so. The Soviet Union has always discharged, and will continue scrupulously to discharge its international obligations. We are deeply Conscious of the fact that unl ess the standards of international law are observed and obligations are discharged, there can be no confidence in the relations between states—and without confidence there can be no peaceful coexistence. We consistently uphold the principles of peaceful coexistence, and shall continue to defend the standards of international law in inter-state relations.

Comrades, I am concluding my speech. I want to emp hasize once more that I am going to the United States with good intentions and a fervent desire to make a fitting contribution to the matter of relaxing international tens ion and consolidating peace. We are fully determined to accept such measures as will help to melt the ice of “cold war” and enable the peoples to breathe freely. I should like to hope that the U.S. Government is also guided by the same considerations. 

It is clear to every sensible person that an improvement of Soviet-American relations will benefit not only the peoples of the Soviet Union and the U.S.A., but also those of all countries, large and small, since they do not want war and are yearning for a reliable and lasting peace.

I wish you, dear comrades, new and big successes for the good of our great country. (Stormy applause.)

Long live the heroic Soviet people, who are confidentl y advancing along the road to communism! (Stormy app lause.) Glory to the great Leninist Party! (Stormy applause.) Long live world peace! (Stormy, prolonged applause.)

Read More