home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac of the 20th Century
/
TIME, Almanac of the 20th Century.ISO
/
portrait
/
stalin
/
stalin.001
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-02-27
|
9KB
|
192 lines
<text>
<title>
(Stalin) Interview:Brass v. Steel
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--Stalin Portrait
</history>
<link 00040><article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
March 16, 1936
Brass v. Steel
</hdr>
<body>
<p> "Why shouldn't I interview Stalin?" the rich and dapper
little son of an Ohio railway conductor asked himself recently in
Paris. Stalin is the son of a blacksmith. In Paris the
conductor's son grabbed a telephone, called Moscow, asked the
U.S. Embassy if the blacksmith's son would consent to see him,
took a train for Moscow.
</p>
<p> At friendly William Christian Bullitt's lavish U.S. Embassy,
good news awaited Roy Wilson Howard, orchidaceous board chairman
of Scripps-Howard Newspapers. Stalin would see Publisher Howard
on Sunday and Stalin did, to the sour vexation of Moscow's
regular correspondents. Cabled the Herald Tribune's Joseph B.
Phillips: "[The] interview which Joseph V. Stalin gave to Roy W.
Howard...on Sunday...has just been whipped into shape for
release by the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs [on Wednesday]."
</p>
<p> Nevertheless last week's scoop by Chairman Howard was of the
first magnitude. After his even more difficult feat three years
ago in becoming the first journalist received by the Japanese
Emperor since the accession of His Majesty, Roy Howard had to
give his word not to quote one word of what the Son-of-Heaven
said. Last week the Soviet Government not only permitted quotes
but supplied Mr. Howard with a translation of what Joseph Stalin
had said in Russian, this interview having been conducted through
brilliant, saturnine Constantine Umansky as interpreter. For five
years Comrade Umansky was the Soviet Foreign Office's Chief
Censor of all news going out of Russia. He leaves Russia this
week to become counselor of the Soviet Embassy in Washington.
</p>
<p> An ace newsman must have the brass to ask what are generally
called "embarrassing questions." This quality Mr. Howard
displayed in full measure in his interview with Dictator Stalin,
whom it is virtually impossible to embarrass. Consequently their
conversation, even after filtering through the Chief Soviet
Censor, was a merry din of brass clashing upon steel. (Stalin is
the Russian word for steel.)
</p>
<p> Russia Without Communism. "Admittedly Communism has not been
achieved in Russia!" cried Brass. "State Socialism has. Have not
Fascism in Italy and National Socialism in Germany claimed to
have attained similar results? Have not both been achieved at the
price of deprivation of personal liberty, sacrificed for the good
of the State?"
</p>
<p> Replied Steel, wholly unembarrassed: "No, Communism has not
been achieved in the Soviet Union so far. It is not easy. But
your term 'State Socialism' is not exact. Many people refer to a
condition as State Socialism when a considerable amount of
national wealth passes to government ownership, sometimes for
military advantage, even though the majority of wealth remains in
private hands.
</p>
<p> "The social order which we have built up so far cannot be
termed State Socialism in this sense. The Soviet system is
fundamentally Socialistic because there is no private ownership
of factories, land, banks, railways, mines, etc. Our system--which
not yet has been quite completed--is Socialistic because
the foundation of society is common State ownership, ownership by
the people or ownership by cooperatives and collective farms.
</p>
<p> "Italian Fascism or German National Socialism does not have
anything in common with such a system, because in those countries
private ownership of industry is not affected. Capitalism in
those countries still has full effectiveness.
</p>
<p> "Under Socialism a certain inequality concerning property
remains, but there is no more unemployment, exploitation or
oppression of one nationality by another [in Russia]. Everybody
is obliged to work and is compensated not according to his needs
but according to the quantity and quality of the work.
</p>
<p> "That is why wages have not been equalized. Only that
society can be called Communistic in which people are
compensated, not on the basis of the quantity or quality of the
work produced, but on the basis of their needs."
</p>
<p> Stalin on War. The unembarrassed admission by the No. 1
Communist of the World that Russia is far from being Communist
but is instead a land where pay is on a strictly piecework basis
was perhaps the most significant part of Roy Howard's interview.
On other points however Brass and Steel clashed far more
spectacularly.
</p>
<p> Brass: Would a Japanese attempt to seize the capital of
Outer Mongolia make positive action (i.e., war) by the Soviet
Union necessary?
</p>
<p> Steel: Yes.
</p>
<p> Brass: Seemingly the entire world today is predicting
another great war. If it proves inevitable, when, Mr. Stalin, do
you think it will come?
</p>
<p> Steel: It may come very unexpectedly. Nowadays wars are not
declared. They simply start. However, I feel that the position of
the friends of peace is improving. They have the advantage of
being able to work in the open by such instruments as the League
of Nations with the assistance of powerful public opinion. They
have tremendous support in the objection to war shared by the
masses of all nations. There is today no people wanting war.
</p>
<p> On the other hand, the proponents of war must work in the
dark, to their disadvantage. Nevertheless, it is not improbable
that this very fact may tempt them to an act of desperation. One
of the newest successes of the friends of peace is ratification
of the Franco-Soviet mutual assistance pact by the French Chamber
This pact is a certain obstacle to the enemies of peace.
</p>
<p> Brass: Should war come, Mr. Stalin, where is it most likely
to break out? Where are the war clouds more menacing, in the East
or in the West?
</p>
<p> Steel: For the moment, perhaps, the situation in the Far
East is more menacing, but the centre of danger may shift to
Europe. Evidence of this was Herr Hitler's recent interview in a
Paris paper in which his statement, though pacific in
terminology, carried with it threats against both France and the
Soviet Union. It is symptomatic that even when Hitler speaks
peace he cannot dispense with threats.
</p>
<p> Brass: What situation or condition in your opinion, Mr.
Stalin, furnishes the chief war menace today?
</p>
<p> Steel: Capitalism.
</p>
<p> Broken Pledges. This pungent answer by the Dictator provoked
nimble little Capitalist Howard to a veritable war dance of
questions to which Communist Stalin replied in kind. Object of
each was to get the better of the other, and in the version made
official by Censor Umansky it appeared that Stalin won.
</p>
<p> Mr. Howard confronted the Dictator with the fact that Soviet
Russia has violated and continues to violate the solemn promises
of Soviet Foreign Commissar Maxim Maximovich Litvinoff to
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Soviet wits have accurately
said that the Daughters of the American Revolution probably could
not be permitted to meet in Moscow if the Litvinoff engagements
were fulfilled to the letter by the Soviet Government. Mr.
Howard's point was that they are not fulfilled. Comrade Stalin's
rebuttal was by implication that it would be absurd for the
Soviet Union to do what it solemnly promised the U.S. it would do
in order to get President Roosevelt to recognize Russia.
</p>
<p> When Brass clashed out last week with reminders of the
incontestable violations committed in the presence of Stalin
himself when overthrow of U.S. Capitalist institutions was urged
in Moscow by U.S. Communists Browder and Darcy, the reply of
Steel was for once just a bit embarrassed and evasive.
</p>
<p> "I don't recall what Browder and Darcy said," hedged Joseph
Stalin. "Maybe they said something of that nature--but the
Soviet people did not found the American Communist Party. The
American Communist Party was created by Americans."
</p>
<p> By this weasel, Steel could be said to have won the match
from Brass, but it was soon evident that, for all Censor
Umansky's care, Publisher Howard had got deeply under Soviet
skins.
</p>
<p> Nobody knows better than Comrade Litvinoff that the
Litvinoff-to-Roosevelt pledges were nothing but a trap to catch
recognition and that, recognition having been caught, they became
scraps of paper. When the U.S. Congress ascertained the facts, it
refused to appropriate the necessary $1,100,000 for U.S. Embassy
& Consular buildings in the Soviet Union. Today Ambassador
Bullitt, highly persona grata in Moscow, constitutes almost the
sole friendly link between Moscow and Washington. Last week
Comrade Litvinoff, obviously more worried than he cared to admit
by the attention Mr. Howard had called to the Soviet-U.S.
situation, bleated in Moscow: "The question of Communist
propaganda is a stale subject about which there should be no
further discussion."
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>