861.012/11–2946
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Smith) to the Secretary of State
No. 567
[Received December 27.]
Subject: Civus Sovieticus Sum
The Ambassador has the honor to enclose a full translation prepared [Page 815] by the Joint Press Beading Service of an article entitled “On Soviet Citizenship”75 published in Izvestiya for November 20, 1946. The article paints a bright picture of the rights and freedoms of Soviet citizens and of the welcome awaiting repatriated Soviet citizens upon their return to the USSR. It also refers to the “great desire” on the part of former subjects of Russia for Soviet citizenship.
It is clear that this article is intended primarily for use as propaganda among former Russian citizens abroad as well as others abroad who have acquired Soviet citizenship by territorial transfer (Baits, Poles, Bessarabians) in an effort to persuade them that if they return to the Soviet Union, they will not only receive extra rations, cash loans and other advantages, but that all of the freedoms of the democratic west are practiced to the full in the Soviet Union. This type of pure propaganda was used very effectively at the time (1936) of the promulgation of the present Soviet Constitution to give the false impression abroad that the Four Freedoms76 were fully practiced in the Soviet Union.
On the contrary the Soviet Union is a secret-police ridden, one party dominated state. While Article 125 of the Soviet Constitution states in part as follows: “In conformity with the interests of the toilers, and in order to strengthen the socialist state, the citizens of the USSR are guaranteed by law (a) freedom of speech, (b) freedom of press, (c) freedom of assembly and of holding mass meetings, (d) freedom of street processions and demonstrations”, in practice none of these freedoms is permitted unless in the eyes of the authorities it is being practiced in what they consider to be “the interests of the toilers”, or unless such freedoms are permitted by the police in order “to strengthen the socialist system” (the current politburo interpretation of socialism).
The fact that despite the promulgation of the constitution ten years ago, there are no public organizations or workers societies except those sponsored, approved and completely controlled by the state or the Party, is eloquent evidence to refute allegations that Soviet citizens freely have the right to organize such societies, etc. In this connection the article points out that “the most active and aware citizens” are united in the Communist Party. No mention, of course, is made of the fact that the Soviet Constitution confers upon this party a monopoly of political leadership. Furthermore, no mention is made of the fact that the statutes of the party explicitly state that the party [Page 816] is the leading center of all organizations of workers both public and state.
Apart from the misleading statements regarding freedoms contained in the article, it will be noted that it fails to mention certain democratic rights and freedoms which are fundamental such as freedom of religion, right to trial by jury, habeas corpus, and the right to strike.
Not only is the article misleading but evidence available to the Embassy indicates that the treatment accorded repatriated citizens is quite different from that described in the article. Soviet citizens who have spent long periods in foreign surroundings, particularly returned war prisoners, are apparently regarded with suspicion by the authorities and are carefully screened. Members of the Embassy staff once in Murmansk witnessed the arrival of a shipload of Soviet repatriates who were effusively greeted by a band and reception committee, then led around a corner and marched off under heavy armed guard to an unknown destination.
To a certain degree, of course, the article may have some influence on the internal front in that it echoes the current propaganda theme that life is as free if not freer in the Soviet Union than in the outside world.
In general, the article is a rather crude version of the old Soviet device of using words and phrases which have one meaning in the outside world and a completely different meaning inside the Soviet Union.