Viewing page 14 of 19

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

In the Land of Socialism

A Challenge to the War Mongers

The Soviets Demand Complete Disarmament.

The following excerpt is from the speech of Maxim Litvinov, the leader of the Soviet delegation to the Disarmament Conference at Geneva. This speech is a challenge to the imperialist war mongers — Great Britain, America, France, Japan, Poland, Italy, etc. etc. who are arming themselves in feverish preparation to plunge the world into another bloody slaughter in which they intend to use the blacks as cannon-fodder as the did in 1914 — 1918. Every Negro worker should read this speech, for it shows that the Soviet Union is the only country in the world which is sincerely trying to maintain peace, and has demanded that all of the Nations completely disarm as a guarantee against war. Ed. —

The Policy of the U.S.S.R. is a Policy of Peace

The Soviet Government is not taking part in this conference on account of formal obligations, and not under any stimulus from outside. From the very first days of his existence it condemned war as an instrument of national policy, by deeds as well as by words, declared against all contributions and territorial annexations, and the oppression of any nation by any other, and proclaimed the principle of national self-determination. Ever since it has in its own policy pursued with strict consistency the line of peaceful and loyal co-operation with other States. Once war is excluded as an instrument of national policy, the Soviet Government sees no need for maintaining armies and other armed forces and, on its first appearance at an international conference — at Genoa ten years ago — it proposed total general disarmament is the only way of putting an end to war. It renewed this proposal as soon as it was invited to take part in the work of the Preparatory Commission for Disarmament. In making this proposal my government took into consideration the demands and claims of the peoples throughout the world as well as the spirit of its own people.

The Soviet Delegation urged at the Preparatory Commission the speediest possible realization of its proposal. At the same time we pointed out the imminent danger of new wars and that the only means of averting this danger, under the economic system existing in most countries, would be total disarmament, and that no treaties, pacts, protocols or international organizations could create real security for all countries. Our point of view was disputed in the Commission. Our warnings as to the imminent possibility of new wars were ridiculed. We were accused of pessimism and of exaggerating the danger. We were told that it was "security" that was required and that this security could be achieved by a system of treaties, protocols and other international undertakings, suggested by the League of Nations, and that there was no hurry about disarmament.

Who stands for peace and who is against it?

It would, however, be wrong to infer from what I have said that the Soviet Delegation denies the importance and efficacy of all other ways of consolidating peace short of total disarmament. The Soviet Government has shown its readiness

for international co-operation by taking part in a series of international congresses and organizations and by the proposals which it brought before them.

Nor do we under-rate the importance of international treaties and undertakings for peace. My government adhered to the 1928 Paris Treaty at the time and even put it into force with neighboring States earlier that it was done by the Treaty's own initiators. My government itself makes a practice of concluding mutual

[[image]]
[[caption]] Kalinin, President of the Soviet Union [[/caption]]

non--aggression pacts which it considers infinitely more significant than multi-lateral or general treaties. It has always proposed non-aggression pacts to STATES. These packets are kind of acid test for making other States display their spirit, whether peaceful or the reverse. When a pack proposed by us to a State is immediately accepted and put into force, a certain stability in the relations between the two States may be affirmed. When such a proposal is not immediately accepted but considered for years, and even after the first letter of the signature has been appended to it, a period of meditation ensues, and the completion of the signature is postponed, there is naturally less feeling of confidence. But still more serious doubts of a peaceful spirit arise with regard to States which categorically reject proposals for the conclusion of a pact of non-aggression, either on some excuse or other, or without giving any excuse. It is then obviously impossible to deny the importance of international pacts as a means of discovering the peaceful or hostile attitude of another State. In addition it must be admitted that the conclusion of a non-aggression pact increases the guilt of the aggressor in cases of disturbance of the peace. Such pacts cannot,