THE WORLD THAT CHANGED AFTER 1945.
Part I. Hopes that were destined to fail
During the period of the Second World War the USSR acknowledged itself as a democratic country — having opposed itself to the totalitarian and dictatorial regimes of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis along with the USA and England — at least at the level of the official ideology. Edward Stettinius, U. S. Secretary of State, wrote in 1944 "Are we afraid of the communism in Russia? Why on earth do we have to be afraid of it? ... We have been working on our experiment for more than 150 years already — and we will keep walking our way, so the Soviets are free to work at their own experiment. We don’t have a single reason to be afraid of Russia. We’d just benefit from the friendship and the mutually profitable cooperation with it".
The USA: amidst the extremes of isolationism and globalism
Since the beginning of the 20th century, two foreign policy activity concepts were competing and interacting with each other within the political elite: the traditional isolationism and the expansionism that was also called the globalism. The second one originated from the first one, having grounded on the military invulnerability of the USA and their faith that the U. S. socio-political system is ideal and is the highest achievement of the human civilization. It was the American globalism that was born more than 100 years ago, rational philosophy of the Age of Enlightenment intertwined with the religious quasi-Christian messianism.
One of the first people who expressed the globalism concept in a clear and brief form was the Senator Albert Beveridge: "The God Almighty made us a gift of the spirit of progress, so we’d be able to overcome the reaction powers all over the world. He has created us competent enough so we could rule over the savage and declining nations. Have we been deprived of this power — whole world would enter the barbarism and ignorance again. Of the entire human race God has marked out the American people as a nation that was chosen to direct the spiritual renaissance of the world. This is the divine mission of America".
These words were said on the 9th of January, 1901. Up to the present day, this doctrine remains to be the motto of the alarmist echelon of the Republican Party. But during the different periods of time other circles of the American elite also weren’t strangers to this idea.
The First World War has seriously hit the traditional isolationism. At the same time, the USA had neither enough power nor funds to carry out the globalism doctrine as it is. That’s how another concept of the American foreign policy came to life, the one that could have been called the relative "openness to the world". It meant an active participation in the international political process without the attempts to dictate its will to the rest of the world. That was kind of a third way between the extremes of the isolationism and the globalism.
According to this concept, U. S. world leadership is to be carried out via the moral influence, including the influence by means of the international institutions. "14 Points" of President Wilson and the idea of creation of the League of Nations embodied the realization of this doctrine.
When the First World War was over, isolationists having made an alliance with the extreme globalists, evened the score, having assured the nonparticipation of the USA in the activity of its own brainchild— League of Nations. The first ones have slated the League of Nations as an instrument that other powers might have used to exert the pressure upon the USA. Therefore, according to their standpoint, U. S. participation in the League of Nations could have severely hit the sovereignty of the USA. The second ones needed the "pure", non-shared U. S. dominion over the world.
Selection of the U. S. elite between these three doctrines was neither more nor less than the civilization choice of the Unites States itself. And it seems that it’s not done yet.
The pre-war period and especially the Second World War itself have largely contributed to the temporary strengthening of the "third way" adherents’ position in the U. S. foreign policy. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was a pronounced supporter of the U. S. openness to the world and the "ideological" style of leadership. The need to cooperate with the USSR for the sake of crushing the fascist bloc has oriented the significant part of the American elite towards the possibility of cooperation with the states that have chosen the different models of their social systems. I think that if we had tried to express the spirit of the global American policy during the Roosevelt rule, we could have used the following words: respect of the sovereignty of the other states, versatility and the dialogue of the civilizations.
"Roosevelt" era: heading towards the long-term cooperation with the USSR
In the earlier quoted book "Lend Lease: Weapon for Victory" E. Stettinius conceived the following grounds of the after-war world and the peaceful U. S policy in it: "When we were not the United Nations and everyone was by himself, all we had were the misfortunes and defeats. Having become the United Nations, we’ve intercepted the enemy’s initiative and now we are winning. It doesn’t matter, how many months of struggle are ahead — until we’re together the day is undoubtedly ours.
What will we be capable of since we reach this victory — that depends from whether we’d be able to conclude peace the same way we’ve fought against the aggression, remaining to be the United Nations. For the last 30 months, since 11th of March, 1941 we’ve received plenty of evidences that our unity can work the miracles. We’ve avoided the catastrophe, which could’ve postponed the liberation for centuries and we’ve gained a great opportunity to achieve the better future for the humanity. We’d only be able to use this opportunity if we stay united.
One might ask why the matter of the possibility of our future cooperation is being raised at all. If we won thanks to our unity, it would be a terrible mockery if we’d suffer a defeat during the peace time, having failed to keep our unity! Then all our losses, all the sacrifices made by those who lived and fought for the victory, would be really in vain.
But if we’ve learned how to fight back-to-back, we still might learn how to cooperate after the war. Of course we’ll face difficulties, contradictions and conflicts of interests. But there’s really nothing new or incredibly awful in it. Such matters can be solved to the mutual benefit. I think that those Americans who doubt that — and that is very odd in my opinion — do not have the faith in our ability to use our power wisely and for the common good in the international relations.
What are we to be afraid of? Rivalry with the Great Britain? We’ll hope that it would be a fair competition — competition in fight for prosperity of our own and all the other countries. After the victory in this war our country can hardly be afraid of any competition. We would have the tremendous material resources and the industrial power at our disposal as the country that didn’t suffer from the enemy attacks, country whose citizens can make business with people all over the world, country that know a lot about the life of other nations thanks to the millions of our compatriots living abroad. The English fear of competition can be understandable as they’ve suffered heavy economic and military losses. However, Englishmen are great businessmen as well and they would find the strength to restore their economy and we are interested in them to succeed at that. Great economic prospects are opening up before everyone who lives in a free and prospering world.
"Are we afraid of the communism in Russia? Why on earth do we have to be afraid of it? Do we have so little faith in our form of leadership and don’t we understand how much good did the free entrepreneurship, regulated for the sake of democracy, brought to our country? We have been working on our experiment for more than 150 years already — and we will keep walking our way, so the Soviets are free to work at their own experiment. We don’t have a single reason to be afraid of Russia. We’d just benefit from the friendship and the mutually profitable cooperation with it".
Are we afraid of the revival of China? Of course, not. China has been the most peaceful of all the great nations for the last 2000 years. New China can be considered to be the moral leader of the United Nations in the sense of understanding of what should we do for the sake of establishing the international cooperation.
After concluding the peace, Americans would have nothing to be afraid of, except, probably, the lack of faith in themselves and their own country. If we’re ready to continue our wartime cooperation even during the peace time, the rest of the world will be glad to cooperate with us for the sake of the common benefit.
All the United Nations have subscribed to the goals, proclaimed in the Atlantic Charter and the Declaration of the United Nations that can be briefly formulated as the freedom of speech, religious freedom, and freedom from poverty and fear. We cannot reach these goals at once — the path that leads to them is long and thorny, but they are still as much worthy and real as the goals of our Declaration of Independence. We cannot reach the strong and lasting peace without reaching them. History of humanity gives us the evidence that peace and prosperity are incompatible with the tyranny, poverty and fear".
Stettinius expressed the views of the "Roosevelt" elite, aiming towards the preserving of the Great coalition that was formed during the Second World War and — which is the most important — the spirit of cooperation and mutual understanding between the nations, which would allow to prevent the future war and military rivalry. Stettinius also wrote about the representatives of the Soviet elite, whom he repeatedly contacted due to his official status:
"When the conference started they’ve immediately went straight to the point, having shown the sober mind and practicalness. Their manner of behavior was very serious and they might seem a bit reticent but if we were having sincere and honest conversation with them, they’ve replied with a sincere benevolence as well. The longer we worked together — the better we understood each other".
Possible USSR evolution: from communism to conservatism and traditionalism
For some period of time internal political processes of the Soviet Union were also giving hope for the future cooperation with countries of anti-fascist coalition. Mind that this term was never used in the USSR in those times. The term "democratic coalition" was in general use. Thus the USSR acknowledged itself as a democratic country — having opposed itself to the totalitarian and dictatorial regimes along with the USA, England and other bourgeois democracies — at least at the level of the official ideology.
New goal had a practical use in the domestic policy. In particular, in 1946 new project of the USSR constitution was prepared due to direct order of Stalin — among the other things, it stipulated the extended list of rights and freedoms as well as the nominating of few competing candidacies for the Soviet posts. By the way, Stettinius, whom we quote so much have written about the Soviet constitution of 1936 that the democratic principles are set up in it, which underlines the absence of the implacable ideological conflicts between the USA and the USSR. He said if the Soviet Union was to show its readiness to stick to the democratic principles of its own constitution in a full measure that would be another important condition of keeping the Great coalition intact1.
In 1947 the USSR Presidium of the Supreme Council abolished the death penalty. At the same time uniform was imposed at the Soviet ministries; yet another institution called "courts of honor" that was intended to deal with the small malfeasances of the civil workers was established — just like in the pre-revolutionary times. Recently, new historical facts became well-known — the ones saying that during the last years of his life Stalin strove to move the center of the political decision-making process to the constitutional authorities — Council of Ministers (as the former Council of People’s Commissioners was called since the 1946) and the USSR Presidium of the Supreme Council, having left only the functions of the ideological guidance to the party authorities. The fact that Stalin himself was the head of the Council of Ministers surely contributed to the authority of this institution.
Deideologization became a clearly expressed trend. Aside from renaming the Council of People’s Commissioners into the Council of Ministers (just as in the Russian Empire), Red Army of the Peasants and Workers was also renamed into the Soviet Army in 1946. Words about communism were heard more and more seldom in the speeches of Stalin and other Soviet leaders. This was particularly apparent in respect to the foreign affairs when Stalin called the communist parties of the foreign countries to be just the "outposts of the anti-imperial and national-liberation movements".
By Yaroslav Butakov
To be continued
1 It is an interesting fact that in a contemporary Russian translation of this book (E. Stettinius. "Lend Lease: Weapon For Victory". Moscow: "Veche", 2000) this fragment of the author’s reasoning was omitted! Original: E. R. Jr. Stettinius. Lend Lease: Weapon For Victory. N.-Y.: Macmillan Co., 1944
|
