Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIV, Soviet Union

34. Memorandum From the Deputy Director of the United States Information Agency (Wilson) to the Director (Rowan)¹

Washington, June 1, 1964.

SUBJECT

• Report on the Soviet Union

The Soviet Union is still a land of paradox and nowhere does it show up more clearly than in the information and cultural fields. Although I was able to engage in some remarkably frank and free exchanges with writers, artists, and even professional propagandists, the repressive hand of the bureaucracy (in my case, in the form of the Ministry of Culture) was never far away. On the same day, for example, I engaged in a free-swinging discussion of the Sino-Soviet rift with the leaders of Novosti, the “press service” which serves as an overseas propaganda organ of the USSR, and then was prevented by the Ministry of Culture from spending an innocuous evening with the editors of a music magazine watching the Red Army Chorus perform.

This paradox of today is still a vast improvement over the Stalinist orthodoxy of eight years ago. Since that time the U.S. Government has slowly expanded its information and cultural activities in the Soviet Union. The process has been, and still is, one of trial and error. The proper approach has been, and still is, one of pushing firmly but not belligerently on a number of doors marked “exchanges”, “cultural presentations”, “radio broadcasting”, “magazine distribution”, and the like. If the door doesn’t open, return in a while and push again. If it does open, keep your foot in it and establish a program, no matter how meager.

Several years ago, our problem in the information and cultural field was the basic one of identifying the opinion leaders of the Soviet Union. Today, they have been identified and we are in contact with a number of them. The problem now has become one of maintaining and expanding those contacts.

If the present political climate prevails, the U.S. Government programs should be able to continue expanding at a gradual and unspectacular rate. Overoptimism and an excess of eagerness should be avoided. Mr. Khrushchev has said there will be ideological coexistence and the bureaucracy that does his bidding clearly understands this. Nevertheless, the infrequent visitor and the American correspondent, in particular, are naturally attracted to the liberal elements of the society who are willing to talk more freely with them. This produces reactions and stories in the Western press that tend to overemphasize the magnitude of the liberal influence. They are there, they are of immense importance, but their position is still fragile. They are the potential enemies of Mr. Khrushchev and of the mysterious forces surrounding him and this fact is never forgotten. We must be extremely careful in courting them. To court the “unapproved” artists and writers too assiduously and to ignore the “approved” ones can set back the liberalization process. The brand of “pro-American” could prove disastrous to those whose courage and creativity we most admire. We must be careful to maintain our relationships with them but also careful to maintain our relationships with those whose work is approved by the Communist Party. The liberal elements understand the necessity of such a “balance” and welcome it. As Eugene Staples, our extraordinarily capable chief Cultural Officer puts it, “We are still far from the day when we can safely predict even how many Soviet intellectuals will be brave enough to come to dinner, much less state with confidence that we will bring a given Soviet citizen or group into our sphere of activities.”

Present indications are that the creative artists have pretty well weathered the storm inflicted upon them in the winter and spring of 1963. For example, although Premier Khrushchev himself described the sculptor Ernest Neizvestny as a “pederast” and his work in words of even fouler connotation, Neizvestny is still sculpting in the same ways and has even received an occasional official American visitor such as Jack Masey, head of USIA’s Graphic Arts Exhibit. For 48 hours, I had an on-again, off-again appointment with Neizvestny which was finally scrubbed. But it is significant that the Ministry of Culture found itself in an embarrassing and confusing quandary over whether to let an American “propagandist” visit the man whom Khrushchev had tried to humiliate a year earlier.

An interesting example of how the Soviet creator adjusts to his ambivalent position was provided by Mr. Efremov, director of the Contemporary Theater, who presents modern Soviet plays to sellout audiences. Efremov, who did come to dinner with me, spoke at some length on how he was able to open “Two for the Seesaw” a year ago at his theatre. Forced by the Ministry of Culture to get approval for all his plays, he slipped the “Two for a Seesaw” request to a sympathetic friend in the Ministry of Culture who approved it somehow without the top-level being consulted. When the play opened, to some very hostile reviews from the Party press, there was consternation. Still, the Ministry was afraid to close the play once it had opened. Finally, L.F. Iliychev, head of the Party’s Ideological Commission, came to check it and apparently he approved because it was allowed to be shown to wildly enthusiastic audiences.

Reports from the Embassy and the press since my departure indicate that the position of the intellectual in Soviet society continues to change constantly. Iliychev had another session with writers and artists at which the latter apparently won some additional concessions.

Current Programs

The present U.S. Government program directed at these people is generally well-conceived. The heart of the matter is the exchanges program which is being better handled now that more Embassy staff time is being devoted to following up with the Russians who have returned from the United States.

At the same time, we should see to it that important Soviet exchanges, especially those in the literary and arts fields, are exposed to the people and institutions which we consider to be important to them. In the cultural field, it seems to me, the principle of reciprocity—so important and sound in other areas of exchanges—need not be so insisted upon since it is just as much in our interest to expose Soviet intellectuals to the United States as it is to have Americans travel to the USSR.

I have the following comments on the three major programs for which we are fully responsible both here and in Moscow:

1. Voice of America. The VOA has been unjammed in the Soviet Union since June 19, 1963 for reasons still somewhat unclear to our Embassy. There is no question that the Voice is listened to by a wide and growing audience. There is now no opprobrium attached to listening. In scores of conversations, with students in Leningrad, with a female economist from Tomsk, with a young embittered Armenian in Tbilisi, with the talented film director A.A. Tarkovsky, with the leader of Moscow’s new theater movement, Mr. Efremov, with the most hidebound bureaucrats, it was apparent that the Voice has become an important source of information. The news is most popular for VOA listeners as well as BBC listeners. Jazz on VOA is next although I observed an interesting phenomenon here. Russian jazz fans, and this includes a great many of the young intellectuals, complain that VOA’s music programs are outdated and not up to the latest being played in New York’s most far-out joints. For this they are turning to Radio Luxembourg. It would seem that the avid Russian fan, like his American counterpart, has a passion for being up with the very latest.

The main objections to VOA centered around charges of “propaganda” about the United States that were hard to believe. There was little complaint about distortions in programs related to life in the Soviet Union and the Communist world—a tribute to VOA’s effort to adhere as closely as possible to the known facts. The intelligent Soviet listeners that I spoke to struck me as shrewd judges of the objective-fact-filled program compared to the emotional super-charged program. VOA’s Russian programs, by all accounts, have improved notably in this direction in the past six months. However, there is much left to do under the new leadership in the Russian section of VOA. The lead taken by Ambassador Kohler, a former head of VOA, and our staff in Moscow in providing a critique in depth of Russian programming has been of great value and must continue.

As the liberalization process hopefully continues in the Soviet Union, we will constantly have to be on our toes with VOA to keep it up to date. More access to the West calls for an increasing degree of sophistication to hold the listening audience.

2. The Exhibits Program. In effect, we have had a permanent exhibits program on location in the Soviet Union since 1961 when the first of five travelling exhibits opened in Kiev. The most recent show on the Graphic Arts in America has been a resounding and runaway success, topping all the others. Over 1.5 million Soviets saw this show in Alma Ata, Moscow, Yerevan, and Leningrad which is more than saw the other four shows combined. It was a happy combination of timing and circumstance. The subject matter of graphic arts fits in perfectly with the growing opportunity—and recent unsuccessful repression—for freer expression in painting. The hit of the show was a section containing a number of abstract works. Incomprehensible to many, derided by many others, the abstract work still opened up something totally new to Russian eyes and they were fascinated.

Each of the exhibits has been accompanied by a troupe of young American guides and these have provided the main pay-off for the U.S. Government. Russian-speaking and usually in their early twenties, they soon become proficient in ideological exchange. I believe their experience has largely gone unnoticed in the government. Few Americans have had a better opportunity to talk to the Russian people than the Exhibit guides.

3. Amerika Magazine. Amerika, currently at a level of 60,000 copies per month, is directed at the 8–10 million young Russians who are educated, intelligent and presumably have an interest in the outside world but no access to it. Some intellectuals I talked to were critical of it. They argued that when it was the only Western publication they had access to, it was fascinating. But now that they have some increased access to Western books and publications they feel Amerika is too slick and too shallow. They would like more poetry, more artistic criticism, more on the arts, and less “general Americana”.

On the other hand, the Ambassador points out correctly that we do not publish Amerika solely for the benefit of the intellectuals but also for those young and already established opinion leaders who have little or no access to things foreign.

Future Possibilities

These programs plus our cultural bulletin, (which is now mailed to 6,000 addressees), our English Teaching Newsletter, our Science Bulletin, our special mailings, the highly effective presentations (books and records primarily) program, and of course the all-important exchanges program must be continued and expanded where possible. In addition the following possibilities, prepared by Staples and our staff in Moscow and approved by IAS here, should be explored:

1. Reach Soviet Industrial Managers. There is an important and influential element of Soviet society devoting itself to the science of industrial management. We have much of interest that we can share with them in publications and exchanges. This is an area that is relatively untouched by our present programs and we should examine the possibilities that exist.

2. Expansion of the English-teaching Program. The audience for English-teaching materials is unlimited in the Soviet Union. This applies to written materials, films, and TV shows. While there, I pressed Mr. Enver Mamedov, Deputy Chairman of the State Committee for Radio/TV to look at our extensive television materials on English-teaching. We should keep trying to open that door and other English-teaching doors because they lead to important new contacts and opportunities.

3. More Direct Contact Work with Soviet and Communist Correspondents. To date we have been able to do very little in trying to place articles and photographs with Soviet and other Communist correspondents in Moscow. This may be a promising field and was mentioned—with a favorable response—in my conversations with D.F. Kraminov, the editor of Za Rubezhom.

4. Increased Scientific Information Work. So far, two copies of a new Science Bulletin have been mailed to a selected list in the Soviet Union. This should be continued and increased. Furthermore, there are apparently new opportunities for distribution of U.S. scientific material to Soviet science writers.

5. More Work with Africans. Now that there is a new African specialist in the Embassy, work with this highly important group should be expanded. We should examine what materials we can supply the specialist from here for presentation to African diplomats and students.

Staples feels that, of necessity, the program in the Soviet Union has grown like Topsy. We are at a sufficient operating level now where we should attempt to survey the entire Soviet scene in cultural and information terms. As he puts it, “We should know this country well enough to be able to say with assurance that Rostov would be a good city for an industrial design exhibit in spite of the fact that the Soviets claim there is no exhibit space there—when we in fact know excellent space is available; that no one in Yalta has ever seen a copy of Amerika magazine in spite of the fact that according to the Soviet distributing agent 73 copies are sold there; or that Duke Ellington should be scheduled into Novosibirsk because our scientific exchangees tell us the Novosibirsk jazz club plays his arrangements.”

[Here follows a 4-page “Sampler of Soviet Opinion.”]

1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, POL USSR. Confidential. Prepared by Wilson following a trip to the Soviet Union and attached to a June 3 memorandum of transmittal from Wilson to Deputy Under Secretary of State U. Alexis Johnson.