Comrade N.S. Khrushchev's Notes on Dulles' Letter to B. Russell

COMRADE N.S. KHRISHCHEV’S NOTES ON DULLES’ LETTER TO B. RUSSELL

14 February, 1958

With respect to the moral law upon which the United States of America are predicated, it has to be stressed, it has to be elaborated what kind of power on which we are built. This is a matter of principle. 

We have to counter this statement and [show] that Mr. Dulles is afraid of a gentle melody which calms people’s nerves and creates humane living conditions for them, so that they are not afraid what today and tomorrow will be like, so that when a person goes to bed he doesn’t have to think of whether he will wake up, whether he will be exploded at the very moment when he is sitting at a breakfast table with his family as a result of such accidental thing as an airplane crash and because this airplane loaded with nuclear and hydrogen bombs falls on his home.  Is it possible [for you] to prefer and (in a very polite manner, not offensive to Dulles) counter this human nature of listening to gentle melodies which would not irritate him but calm him, with the melodies of the “cold war” against which we are fighting? And I, as a human and as Khrushchev, also take every effort to fight the “cold war”, the arms race, to fight against everything that is done against the mankind. 

Now if we talk about the moral that serves as a basis for both concepts, political and philosophical, then there is the philosophy of the Communist Party and the bourgeois philosophy, which the monopolistic world relies on. Of course here we have to go back a bit and revisit history, take a short digression which will show that a socialist state founded on the ideology created by a progressive school of thought, on the basis of Marxist-Leninist school of thought, has only been in existence for 40 years, while mankind has existed from before Christ and it’s 1958, and mankind existed before the birth of Christ for a long time. And when did the first war start? Apparently when humans had no concept of either the word “communism” or the dictatorship of proletariat. But did they have wars then? They did. Which moral was the basis for those who waged these wars? Let’s remember for example (here they are talking about the faith in God so we need to address that) which faith the Templars relied on when they went to fight for the Holy Sepulchre. What did they spill their blood for? Did they really need the Holy Sepulcher? No, they were not fighting for the Holy Sepulchre, they were just fighting (explain here). 

 What did they fight for, for example, when the wars were regularly waged? Let’s remember for example the war between the Germans and the French, the war between the French, Spanish, and English, between the English and the Germans, between the Russians on one side and the French and the English on the other in 1854?

 In this and the other wars the armies were led by priests and ministers, and they marched with icons, conducted prayer services and annihilated people. 

World War I was also not between the socialist and the capitalist states, and the states were motivated by the same moral values that Mr. Dulles is talking about. However, World War I was the deadliest war prior to World War II. It cost so-and-so many millions lives.

 World War II wasn’t started by us, not by a socialist state based on the Marxist-Leninist school of thought, but notably was started by those countries who were motivated by these moral values, including Hitler himself. Therefore this is not factually correct (all of this needs to be elaborated). Every young man who is just starting to learn life and get familiar with history will be suspicious right away, he will find contradictions in Mr. Dulles’s statement right away, because it does not align with the historic facts. 

 Now Mr. Dulles is saying that America never fought a war. So what do you call a war that America waged against Mexico? What was it motivated by and what was it trying to achieve? This was a direct war. It happened in … (year). 

 And what about proxy wars which were not waged directly but indirectly? The crushing defeat of democratic Guatemala is not a secret for anyone (give examples of other countries). We are not going to dwell on this. We do not want to aggravate [our relations]. However, we want specifics, clarification and truthfulness. 

 Or what moral laws did the French, the Americans, the Japanese and the Germans base their actions upon when they attacked after the revolution happened here in Russia, when the Soviet government with Lenin at the head announced that they were ending the war. And after this statement, at the time when the Soviet state did not have an army, foreign armies invaded our country. What kind of law, what did they base their actions on, on what truth? Where is the law that allowed that? 

 If the ultimate goal is to “liquidate the Cold War”, then it is better not to pose this question. Let’s just stop this digression here, because if we continue on and reveal what is known and written in history, the statements which you, Mr. Dulles, are making, will not look good. 

 Where he talks about the government that doesn’t believe in God, here we have to reiterate (when we list [the examples]) – and what about the attack on Egypt by the English and the French? These governments are based on the belief in God. 

 Where he talks about elections (we need to mention this either here, or in a different place), we should say that Northern Korea has already mentioned several times that it is ready to conduct open elections on equal terms in both [North and South Korea], but Syngman Rhee in South Korea doesn’t accept this and relies on the force and the support of the US, and Mr. Dulles supports this policy of Syngman Rhee. 

As to Germany. They say that the Soviet Union is not interested in this. We made a statement on this issue that is quite good and exhaustive, because we believe that there are two states. But let’s take such latest issue as Vietnam. There was a conference in which three countries participated. The United States also sent its representative. Their representative was present during this. At the conference an obligation was made to end the war. The war was ended. Also a decision was made to conduct general elections. However the elections didn’t take place. Why? Who prevented them? South Vietnam did. Who does South Vietnam rely on, what moral values does it draw upon? Its moral values are based on the US supporting them. 

 And how do these attitudes relate to the statement made by the US about the need to meet and discuss between the great countries, i.e. between the Soviet Union, the US, England and France, the issue of government structure of eastern countries? This is direct interference. And what is the “Eisenhower Doctrine”? It also represents direct interference aimed against the world communism. But there is no world communism. There is no such status or society as world communism, because it does not exist. What exists is the communist school of thought, and it is actually world-wide, because it lives among people who populate the universe, among the world. But this is just a belief, as well as the belief that is based on everlasting foundations of the capitalist order or any other order. We Communists have never said that these issues should be resolved by military force, by way of wars, but that these issues are internal. However, it directly states that if the world communism wins, that is if the society of one country or another, the majority of the society, votes for communism, for the communist social structure, then the “Eisenhower Doctrine” gets triggered and the Americans send their military there. What is this called? A democracy? This is the opposite of democracy. 

 The place where he is talking about the declaration. Here we have to rebut and state that the declaration is distorted and Mr. Dulles wants to misguide the people who, quite possibly, are not very well informed about politics. On top of that, the full text of this declaration apparently has not been published in the US. The declaration doesn’t say this. It talks about [situations] when the power is taken over by a parliamentary way, that is by the majority of the people, but as a rule the bourgeoisie never cedes power voluntarily, it can’t surrender to the will of this majority, and we can find a lot of examples of that. Let’s take Spain for example. Let’s take Mr. Franco. Mr. Dulles had a very amicable conversation with him on his way back from the NATO meeting. But the same Franco drowned in blood Spanish democracy and the constitution in accordance with which the majority came to power and installed democratic order. Franco did not recognize the results of these elections, did not recognize their decisions and started a mutiny. 

 Or Guatemala. The “Eisenhower Doctrine” again. We have to make a statement here from this perspective. 

 In addition, decisions on these issues have to be made separately by the people of each individual country. The peoples will have to make their own decision on how and by what path they will make sure that the truth prevails, i.e. that the people who participate in production of products necessary for the society, that they themselves receive these products during distribution. So the war we are talking about is a class war, a war of those workers who do the work and those thieves who steal from these workers. This is a separate issue. This is not an issue between the states but [the issue] inside these states, between their classes. Therefore we shouldn’t mix the issue of class struggle and the issue of international struggle between states, the struggle between individual states. These are different concepts. 

 The declaration is talking about the class struggle. And we do, indeed, sympathize with the communists because they are fighting for the interests of the working class. And through its struggle the working class not only emancipates its own class but, by emancipating its own class they emancipate all of the mankind, all of the society of each individual state. 

In the section where they talk about Hungary, we need to say: Mr. Dulles has repeatedly used the Hungarian incident in his agitation statements against the Soviet Union. Well then, we need to analyse it on its merits, the way it really happened. And the issue lies in the fact that here the reactionary forces, counterrevolutionary forces, “Horthyist” forces, and agents of major foreign monopolistic capital wanted to turn Hungary to the capitalist path and, Mr. Dulles, this handful of hired mercenaries, this imperialistic agent network was followed by some honest people who were misguided by the mistakes of the leadership which brought a disaster on the Hungarian people. This imperialistic agent network which attracted misguided and confused by mistakes [people], who did this agent network start the mutiny against? Against the lawful government of the Hungarian people, elected in accordance with the Constitution of the Hungarian Socialist Republic. Which right, which laws did this counterrevolutionary group follow in this fight? What data did they have to prove that they really represented the will of the people? After all, there was no congress other than the existing lawful government bodies. Therefore the government which was then in place, that government was a lawful government. It has been and it continues to be lawful. 

When counterrevolutionary forces wanted to return Hungary to the old order of things, which was a major disaster for the peoples of Europe and beyond, this Hungarian government had a full right to ask for help, and we, pursuant to the agreement between our countries, we, in the interests of the Hungarian people and in the interests of peoples of Europe and the whole world, in order to prevent the return of the “Horthyist” order and resurrection of a Nazi Hungary, we extended assistance and we believe that it was extended lawfully, and that it was appropriate from the point of view of constitutionality and in the interest of all mankind. 

 The purpose here was to prevent the resurrection of the Nazi-Horthyist state in Europe and to avoid coming into existence of the same situation that was forced on [people] with the introduction of the fascism in Germany, Italy and Hungary, which brought so many disasters, blood and tears to the peoples, including to the peoples of the US, England and France, because we were allies in the war against this band of rabid beasts. 

 We also have to say that nothing old and obsolete ever conceded ground voluntarily. The feudal system, too, conceded under pressure from the new, emerging capitalist system. If we look at the history of the inception of the United States, this also was a colony of England, and this country was born and won its independence also by fighting for it. They didn’t ask the English if they have the right to declare war on England and to expel colonialists from the US. Instead Washington started the fight and it was continued by Lincoln, and the colonialists were expelled. Then the government bodies were formed. And this is how the United States of America was created. Similarly, the Soviet Union was created following the same laws when it kicked out the czarist system when [this czarist system] caused a catastrophe. And then the people revolted and overthrew this system, but the voting for and against the formation of the socialist state continued for three years and for three years there was a civil war. And America, in order to either be or not be the colony, or to be an independent country, separate from England had to also fight a war for three years. 

We have always stood for and continue standing for … we are conducting a policy of non-interference … (mention the five principles). But you deny that. Lately you have come up with the “Eisenhower Doctrine”. This doctrine is direct interference, it is a negation of the people’s right to determine their destiny the way they deem necessary based on their interests. 

 Mr. Dulles and others often use the word “free elections”, etc. This is very much an abuse of the word “free”. What is freedom? We believe, that in socialist countries there is true freedom because here the freedom is used not by those who has money but by those who work and who participate in wealth creation, in creation of material values that people live on (need to elaborate about this). 

 But you use the word “freedom” and call “free” the countries where billionaires like Rockefeller, Morgan, Ford, and Dupont sit in their offices and do not always serve as elected [officials]. They believe that this distracts them from their activities. Instead they send their representatives, their directors to serve either as a minister or as a president, and afterwards, when they have loyally served their masters, they go back to the [corporate] positions they held before. Whom do they serve? And this is what you call freedom. They deceive the people using their political ignorance, they employ such means for influencing people as printed media, radio and television in order to confuse them, and push through representatives that implement policies in their own class interests, in the interests of those who possess all means of production, and [by doing this] they strengthen their domination over those who are slaves of the capital. 

What type of power do the communists have, where does this power come from if there were … communists in czarist Russia, and after the October Revolution there were … communists while the population was …. And therefore did the communists make that up? No. Communists served only as a source of light, the ray which illuminated [people] by its teachings, which opened the curtain and cleared the blurry vision that the ruling classes imposed on the workers and peasants to oppress them, and the people themselves came on stage and claimed their right. This will happen in every country. And this will happen in your country, too. But we are the communists of the Soviet Union. There are none and there will be none of our communists in your country. However, we believe that the ideas of communism make way into the minds of people irrespective of their nationality, skin color, religious confession, etc. because this school of thought corresponds to the vital interest of the working class and not only of the working class. The working class is more receptive because capitalist conditions prepared it for embracing it, but [the working class] does it in the interests of the society as a whole. 

We need to say that these are specifically the positions that we maintain. The power is given to the people who are governed by this power. We accept it, we call for it and we fight for it. 

As to nuclear war – we need to say that we are pleased to hear that from Mr. Dulles because this is exactly the position we have been maintaining all this time. So let’s take a step from words to action, and action consists in … (we should say let’s give the people what they dream about, and they dream about things that [constitute] our positions – disarmament and moratorium on nuclear weapons – put all of this in detail here.) 

We have to state our position on this issue: yes, indeed, the US wanted to create a global pool, but it was not liberation, they wanted for the Soviet Union to fall under full control of the monopolists in the US and that it lost its independence. We have always expressed and continue to express this desire, our proposals always have been and continue to be for condemning the use of nuclear weapons in wars, for the moratorium on its production, and for abolition of thermo-nuclear weapons (repeat it again). And now we maintain the position in support of this. Let’s do it, but on equal terms and not in the way that makes everyone subordinate to the US so that the US achieves its goal. For this reason they subordinated all capitalist countries to their influence, and these countries de facto lost their independence, though they still preserve their legal independence, their constitutional independence. 

 The only country which installed the rule of people for themselves is the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries. They are truly free and independent in their domestic and foreign policy. A number of countries that rid themselves of colonial oppression are also trying to defend their independence, both political and economic (this has to be given to Gromyko). 

 In the section where he says that the Soviet Union declined the US proposal, we should say that this does reflect the truth, that this is inaccurate and then say what actually happened, what we have proposed and what we continue to propose. Talk about why our proposals were not accepted. 

 In the section where they talk about space, we have to mention Eisenhower’s proposals to develop a set of measures to coordinate the policy of conquering space. Say here that we never denied this, we support this but we believe that this issue has to be addressed on a wider scope, because space is the most important concern for the US now because the US territory now falls within the impact zone of the warfare [that they mentioned], especially if the war is started by aggressive forces. That is why you are interested in this. But this is not the only thing we are interested in. We are also interested in this warfare with which you surrounded the Soviet Union and with which you threaten it from the “position of force”. Thus we want it not to be a threat to the US, as well as to the Soviet Union and other socialist and peace-loving European countries. We want to address this issue comprehensively, so that it’s beneficial not only for the US but for all mankind. 

 Now we have to take into account that, if there is a war between two countries, modern warfare – nuclear and hydrogen – will not only be dangerous in terms of horrible destruction and disarmament as a result of explosions, but it may also be dangerous to people who may not be participants in the war and who will possibly be doomed to a much slower and much more horrible extinction as a result of contamination, Mr. Dulles. And now, according to the estimates of scientists, we apparently either have reached or are close to reaching the state when the quantities of nuclear and hydrogen warfare that our countries amassed, if we explode [them], will be enough to cause dire consequences for all living beings on the planet. Therefore don’t you think it’s about time to come to our senses and stop the verbal duel that were are currently engaged in? After all, this spring has sprung from the cold war, not at our fault, but yours, and [we need] to move to concrete talks and negotiations with the purpose to [sic.] one step at a time. Maybe it won’t be possible to resolve all issues at the first meeting, but we are prepared to go to this meeting with the hope that we will build a foundation for the liquidation of the cold war and create the conditions for future movement in this direction with the objective of achieving a truly sustainable coexistence and peace in the world. 

 Mr. Dulles, you yourself know, that what you are saying does not tie in with what you know about the policies of the Soviet Union, about our proposals regarding gradual reduction of the military and about the disarmament policy. You know that. 

 I have to mention that our policy is distorted in your interpretation, Mr. Dulles, and it can only be understood and accepted when [one assumes that] the person who says these things bases his statements on the position of continuing the cold war and the arms race, and, of course, as a consequence of this policy, [continuing] conflicts and wars. We are not pursuing these objectives. Then there is no sense in calling for escalation of armament and such, but [we] need to look for solutions to these issues, so that we can decrease the burden of armaments, disarm and create conditions of which the whole mankind dreams. 

 “A part” – which part, Mr. Dulles, do you want us to give up? What if we suggest that you, Mr. Dulles, abolish private ownership and introduce public ownership? I believe that Mr. Dulles is not ready for this, and not only he but also other people who have his way of thinking. And therefore we believe that it is absurd to raise the issue in this manner, because the mere fact that this issue is raised shows that the purpose is not to come to an agreement, and as a result of this agreement to liquidate the cold war and tensions and move on to disarmament. But what it means is that [he] sticks to his old views and to his position of continuing the cold war, and this will one day lead to a situation when there is going to be a real and horrific catastrophe for all peoples inhabiting the globe, and this will definitely happen if it is caused by a thermo-nuclear war. Therefore, let’s say no to this specifically, because if we don’t say not to this, it will mean that we will keep our views and that we will [continue to] interfere into internal affairs of other countries. And when we say that we need to coexist, and coexistence should only be under condition of non-interference into the affairs of other countries, which means recognizing their independence and sovereignty. If we continue to insist on these positions then it will mean interference, and it will mean that Mr. Dulles wants to teach our people a lesson on what type of state and what type of social structure they should have. 

 These issues of course should not be solved at a meeting. They have already been solved by the will of the people and by [the victory in] the bloody battle. Take for example the revolutions in France, Germany, and the civil war in the US. These issues, as a rule, are solved historically by other means. 

 We are saying that we are not only for the moratorium, but also for the reduction and for full disarmament. Therefore we not only hate the thermo-nuclear war, we hate the war in general, because, it causes disasters and it doesn’t do anything for the people. It only enriches monopolists who capitalize on it, but the working class, the farmers and the intelligentsia pay for it with their own blood but don’t gain anything. 

 Apparently, we will have to write this way:

 To Mr. Russell 

To Mr. Dulles and so on 

Having reviewed the letter of Mr. Dulles who, as he is mentioning, is responding at the request of President Eisenhower to Russell and is referencing my response to Mr. Russell, I believe that in order to ascertain the truth and correcting inaccurate interpretations and distortions which were made by Mr. Dulles, it is my duty to respond to this. (This has to be phrased calmly without any challenge. Here we have to have proof because we are writing to Russell – an idealist and a philosopher. If we start berating Dulles, he will get insulted and this will have a negative effect on Russel and on people who share his points of view, as well as on public in general.) 

Written down by NP