861.9111/11–644: Telegram
The Chargé in the Soviet Union (Kennan) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 7—12:30 p.m.]
4258. There follows a translation, prepared in the Press Bureau of the Foreign Office, of the third and last section of the report rendered by Stalin, in his capacity of chairman of the State Defense Committee, at the celebration meeting of the Moscow Soviet this evening.78 The first sections were devoted to military affairs and to the war effort of the Soviet Peoples, respectively, and will be reported later. The third section entitled “The Consolidation and Extension of the Anti-German Coalition Front. The Question of Peace and Security,” reads as follows:
“The past year has been a year of triumph for the common cause of the anti-German coalition, for the sake of which the peoples of the Soviet Union, Great Britain and the United States have joined in fighting alliance. It has been a year of consolidation of the unity of the three main powers and of coordination of their action against Hitler Germany.
. . . . . . .
All through the war the Hitlerites have been making frantic efforts to cause disunion among the United Nations and set them at loggerheads, to stir up suspicion and unfriendly feeling among them, to weaken their effort by mutual mistrust and if possible by conflict between them as well. Ambitions like these on the part of the Hitler politicians are easy enough to understand. There is no greater danger for them than unity of the United Nations in the struggle against Hitler imperialism and they could achieve no greater military political success than by dividing the Allied powers in their fight against the common foe. It is well known however how futile the efforts of the Fascist politicians to disrupt the alliance of the great powers have proved. That means that the alliance between the USSR, Great Britain and the United States is founded not on casual short lived considerations but on vital and lasting interests.
There need be no doubt that having stood the strain of over 3 years of war and being sealed with the blood of nations risen in defence of their liberty and honour, the fighting alliance of the democratic powers will all the more certainly stand the strain of the concluding phase of the war.
. . . . . . .
To win the war against Germany is to accomplish a great historical task. But winning the war is not in itself synonymous with ensuring for the nations lasting peace and guaranteed security in the future. [Page 930] The thing is not only to win the war but also to render new aggression and new war impossible, if not forever, then at least for a long time to come.
After her defeat Germany will of course be disarmed both in the economic and the military political sense. It would however be naive to think that she will not attempt to restore her might and launch new aggression. It is common knowledge that the German chieftains are already now preparing for a new war. History reveals that a short period of time, some 20 or 30 years, is enough for Germany to recover from defeat and reestablish her might. What means are there to preclude fresh aggression on Germany’s part and if war should start nevertheless to nip it in the bud and give it no opportunity to develop into a big war?
The question is the more in place since history shows that aggressive nations, as the nations that attack, are usually better prepared for a new war than peace loving nations which having no interest in a new war are usually behindhand with their preparations for it. It is a fact that in the present war the aggressive nations had an invasion army all ready even before the war broke out while the peaceloving nations did not have even a fully adequate army to cover the mobilization. …
. . . . . . .
Well what means are there to preclude fresh aggression on Germany’s part and if war should start nevertheless, to nip it in the bud and give it no opportunity to develop into a big war?
There is only one means to this end in addition to the complete disarmament of the aggressive nations: that is to establish a special organization made up of representatives of the peaceloving nations to uphold peace and safeguard security; to put the necessary minimum of armed forces required for the aversion of aggression at the disposal of the directing body of this organization and to obligate this organization to employ these armed forces without delay if it becomes necessary to avert or stop aggression and punish the culprits.
It will be a new, special, fully authorized world organization having at its command everything necessary to uphold peace and avert new aggression.
Can we expect the actions of this world organization to be sufficiently effective? They will be effective if the great powers which have borne the brunt of the war against Hitler Germany continue to act in a spirit of unanimity and accord. They will not be effective if this essential condition is violated.”
- For comments on the speech made by Stalin on the anniversary of the revolution in 1943, see telegram 1871 of November 7, 1943, from Moscow, Foreign Relations, 1943, vol. iii, p. 594.↩