761.00/5–2950
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Kirk) to the Secretary of State
No. 676
Possibility of Peaceful Coexistence
A lecture delivered on May 16, 1950 by F. N. Oleschuk,1 a frequent contributor to the central press, throws further light on current Soviet thinking on relations between East and West. As reported by a British [Page 1204] Embassy observer, Mr. Oleschuk’s remarks substantially were as follows:
The Capitalistic system as such contains within itself certain elements of crisis. Moreover, as a result of World War II, the sphere of action of the Capitalist camp has been reduced, while there has been a corresponding increase in the strength of the Communist camp. The struggle between these two camps has accelerated as the Capitalist camp frantically seeks to regain its lost position. As a result of specific actions undertaken at the instance of the United States (the Atlantic Pact, et cetera), the USSR is now confronted not simply by preparations for war, but by the rapidly accelerating threat of war. In this regard, it is the imperialist camp which has the greater reason to fear another war, given the enhanced position of the Soviet orbit.
The insistence upon the possibility of peaceful coexistence of the Communist and Capitalist systems is a fundamental doctrine of the CPSU(b).2 However, it is incorrect to assume that this doctrine implies that such coexistence can exist in perpetuity. On the contrary, it presupposes a limited historical framework, and will cease to be operative when the working masses are in a position to overthrow the Capitalistic system. The longer Capitalism exists, the more inevitable will be its collapse, given the certainty that it is fundamentally rotten and degenerate. For this reason, the Soviet Union must fight for peace, making use of the peace front as a primary weapon. Despite certain setbacks (e.g. the poor showing of the British CP in the last elections), the peace front, with its six hundred million adherents, is fully equal to the task of maintaining peace. Having already ensured against Germany becoming a place d’armes, the next step is to prevent the attachment of the Ruhr to France, and to fight against the integration of Western Europe. The settlement of international problems is fraught with difficulties, but these must be solved if peace is to be assured “for ten years or more”.
The foregoing statement of policy suggests certain parallels between the tactics of the Peace Front of today and the pre-war Popular Front. Like the Popular Front, the Peace Front seems primarily designed to stabilize the existing balance of power for a relatively short period of time, making use of non-Communist elements in this effort, and being predicated upon the assumption that in the interval the power of the Soviet Union will grow relative to that of the Capitalist world. The indication that the prevention of French-Ruhr integration is a primary task of the Peace Front suggests that the Kremlin does not place high hopes in the ability of the French Communist [Page 1205] Party to achieve power. Finally, the phrase “ten years or more” is the most concrete expression to come to the Embassy’s attention of Soviet thinking on the probable duration of peaceful coexistence.
Minister-Counselor
- Fëdor Nesterovich Oleshchuk had been assistant head of the Administration of Propaganda and Agitation under the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.↩
- The Embassy had earlier reported in telegram 970 on March 28 that there was a renewed development of the propaganda on peaceful coexistence in connection with the election campaign speeches by Politburo members. It drew attention to a long article which had appeared on that day in Pravda, possibly in connection with recent speeches by Secretary of State Acheson. The article had placed “considerable emphasis on theme peaceful competition between capitalism and Communism, but ends on what might be termed ‘uncompromising’ tone in stressing ‘active character peace movement’ and abhorrence Impotent pacifism.’” (761.001/3–2850)↩