Record of Stalin's Conversation with Romain Rolland (June 28, 1935)
【Original】Editor’s note: Romain Rolland was a renowned French writer celebrated worldwide. From June 23 to July 21, 1935, he visited the Soviet Union at the invitation of A. M. Gorky, lasting nearly a month. On June 28, Stalin received him in his office at the Kremlin and talked with him. This conversation left a deep impression on Rolland, who was eager to publish the content but was unable to do so. Later, Rolland also decided not to disclose the conversation publicly and chose to seal it for 50 years, due to Gorky’s death, the publication of André Gide’s book “From the Soviet Union” and the Soviet authorities’ reactions to it, as well as the events of 1937, which thoroughly changed Rolland’s previous views and evaluations of Stalin.
The “Historical Materials” magazine in Russia published the record of Stalin’s conversation with Rolland in its 1st issue of 1996. This record was reviewed by Stalin himself and distributed to members of the Politburo of the CPSU (Bolsheviks).
Confidential
Not for publication
Stalin's Conversation with Romain Rolland
(Final Draft)
On the afternoon of June 28 this year, Comrade Stalin received Romain Rolland, with Rolland’s wife and Comrade A. A. Arosev present.
Exchange of friendly greetings. Stalin asked everyone to be seated. Rolland thanked Stalin for the opportunity to have this conversation and expressed special thanks for the warm reception.
Stalin:
I am pleased to converse with one of the greatest writers in the world.
Romain Rolland:
It is very unfortunate that my health prevented me from visiting this great new world earlier, a world we are all proud of, and which is connected to our hopes. If you permit, I will speak as an old friend and comrade of the Soviet Union, as well as a witness, observer, and representative of young and sympathetic Europeans.
You surely know how thousands of Westerners view the Soviet Union. Their understanding of the USSR is very vague, but they see it as their hope and ideal, even though these hopes and ideals often differ and sometimes contradict each other. Amid the current severe economic and moral crises, they look to the USSR for guidance and slogans to dispel their doubts.
Of course, meeting their demands is difficult. The USSR faces formidable tasks to build and defend the country. Therefore, the best slogan the USSR can propose is to set an example. The USSR has pointed out a path and persisted in following it, proving that this path is correct.
However, the USSR cannot shirk the major responsibilities imposed by the contemporary world situation, which can be considered as “highest” responsibilities—namely, caring for the masses of other countries that fully trust the USSR. Beethoven once said: “Ah, man, you must save yourself!” Merely repeating this famous saying is not enough; we must help them and give them advice.
To do this well, we must consider the characteristics and ideologies of each country—here I will only speak about France. Not understanding the unique ideology of this country can cause, and has indeed caused, serious misunderstandings.
We cannot expect the French public or even sympathizers to have the dialectical thinking that has become second nature in the USSR. The French are accustomed to abstract logical thinking, which emphasizes reason, straightforwardness, and is more deductive than experimental. We must understand this trait well to overcome it. This is the public, the opinion that habitually talks big. We must always tell them the motives behind actions.
From my political point of view, the USSR does not emphasize telling its motives for certain actions to its foreign friends, even though they have legitimate and convincing reasons for their actions. But the USSR seems uninterested in doing so. I believe this is a serious mistake because it can lead to misinterpretations—some of which are deliberate—and cause worry among thousands of sympathizers. Recently, I found that many honest French people share these concerns, and I must warn you.
You might say that our role, as intellectuals and comrades, is to do explanatory work. We are hardly capable of this task, mainly because we lack information and are not provided with the necessary data to understand the situation and explain it.
I think the West should establish an organization similar to the Soviet Union’s foreign cultural association, but with a more political character, to facilitate spiritual exchanges. The absence of such an organization has allowed misunderstandings to accumulate, and the Soviet side has no official body to dispel them. People probably think these misunderstandings will naturally fade over time, but they do not—they pile up. Action should be taken from the start: whenever misunderstandings arise, they should be immediately addressed.
Now I will give some examples.
The Soviet government’s decisions—whether court rulings, judgments, or laws changing typical penalties—are the highest authority in the USSR. In some cases, certain issues or individuals involved may attract widespread attention and have universal significance, and for some reasons, foreign public opinion also reacts. Avoiding misunderstandings is quite simple—why not do so?
You resolutely suppressed the criminals involved in the conspiracy to murder Kirov, which was correct. But after punishing the conspirators, you should let the European public and the world know about their crimes. You sentenced Viktor Serge to exile in Orenburg for three years, which was originally a minor matter, but why did it cause such a stir in European opinion for two years? He is a writer who writes in French; I do not personally know him, but I am a friend of his friends. They often ask me about his exile to Orenburg and his experiences. I firmly believe you have your reasons for doing so, but why not clarify this to the French public from the beginning, who insist he is innocent? Generally speaking, in a country that has experienced the Dreyfus and Kharakiri cases, it is extremely dangerous to make the convicted person the center of the entire movement.
Another matter is quite different: recently, a law was enacted to punish minors over 12 years old. Few people know the provisions of this law, and even if they do, it will arouse great suspicion. The impression given is that the death penalty will be applied to these children. I understand that your motivation is to deter irresponsible people and those who want to exploit such irresponsibility. But the public does not understand this. They think the threat exists, or that judges will arbitrarily enforce it. This could cause a very large protest movement. It is urgent to prevent such a situation.
Comrades, forgive me if I have spoken too much or raised questions that should not have been.
Stalin:
No, no, please go on. I am very eager to listen; I am completely absorbed by your talk.
Romain Rolland:
Finally, I want to talk about a misunderstanding that urgently needs to be dispelled, caused by the issue of war and attitudes toward war. France has long debated this issue. A few years ago, I discussed with Barbusse and my Communist friends the dangers of uncontrolled anti-war movements. I believe it is necessary to study the various situations that may arise in war and determine the different positions to take in different circumstances. If I am not mistaken, the USSR needs peace and wants peace, but the stance the USSR takes is not entirely consistent with pacifism. Pacifism in some cases may be a retreat from fascism, which can also lead to war. In this regard, I am somewhat dissatisfied with certain resolutions of the Amsterdam Anti-War and Anti-Fascist Conference held in 1932, because they raise doubts about anti-war strategies.
Currently, both pacifists and many friends of the USSR are at a loss on this issue because the military alliance between the USSR and the French democratic government against imperialism makes socialist and communist consciousness uncomfortable, which causes concern. There are many major issues of revolutionary dialectics that need to be clarified. This work should be done as sincerely and openly as possible.
That’s all I want to say.
Stalin:
I will now answer one by one.
First, let’s talk about the war issue. Under what conditions was our mutual assistance treaty with France signed? At that time, two national systems had formed in Europe and the entire capitalist world: the fascist national system and another system inherited from the old era—the bourgeois democratic national system. The fascist states forcibly suppress everything vital, destroy the working class and its ideas by force, making workers suffocate in these countries. The bourgeois democratic states also suppress the workers’ movement, but with different means—parliaments, some free newspapers, legal parties, etc. There are differences. Admittedly, these countries have limitations, but they still have some freedom, and to some extent, can breathe. These two national systems are fighting worldwide. As we see, this struggle is intensifying over time. The question is: should the government of a worker’s state remain neutral and not intervene? No, it should not, because neutrality would mean letting fascists succeed, which threatens peace, the USSR, and the global working class.
But if the Soviet government intervenes, on which side should it stand? Of course, on the side of bourgeois democratic countries, which have not yet destroyed peace. Therefore, the USSR hopes that France will be fully armed to prevent possible fascist attacks and oppose aggressors. Our intervention thus tips the scales in the struggle between fascism and anti-fascism, aggression and anti-aggression, making the scale lean towards anti-fascism and anti-aggression. That is why we signed the agreement with France.
I am speaking from the perspective of the Soviet Union as a nation. Should the French Communist Party adopt this stance on the war issue? I think not. The French Communist Party has not yet seized power; the ruling class in France is the capitalists and imperialists, and the French Communist Party is a minority opposition. Can we guarantee that the bourgeoisie will not use the army to suppress the French working class? Of course not. The USSR and France signed a mutual assistance treaty against aggressors and external attacks, but the USSR did not and could not sign a treaty preventing the French bourgeoisie from using their army to suppress the French workers. As you see, the position of the Communist Party of the USSR is entirely different from that of the French Communist Party. Obviously, the stance of the French Communist Party will not be the same as that of the ruling Communist Party of the USSR. Therefore, I fully understand that the French comrades believe that the French Communist Party should generally adhere to its position before signing the Soviet-French agreement. However, this does not mean that if war finally breaks out despite the efforts of the Communists, they should resist the war and engage in factory slowdowns, etc. Although we Bolsheviks oppose war and wish the Tsarist government to fail, we have never refused to take up arms. When war becomes inevitable, we should enlist, practice shooting, learn to use weapons, and then fight against our class enemies.
As for whether the USSR can sign political treaties with certain bourgeois states against other bourgeois states, this question was affirmed during Lenin’s lifetime and under his advocacy. Trotsky was very supportive of this solution at the time, but now it seems he has forgotten…
You say that we should lead our Western European friends forward together. I must say we are afraid to undertake such a task. We cannot lead them because it is too bold to point out the way forward for people living in completely different environments. Every country has its specific conditions; leading these people from Moscow is too daring for us. Therefore, we can only offer some general suggestions. Otherwise, we would assume responsibilities beyond our capacity. We have personally experienced the taste of foreign leadership, especially distant leadership. Before the war, specifically in the early 20th century, the German Social Democratic Party was the core of the Socialist International, and we Russians were their students. The German Social Democratic Party tried to lead us. If we had let them lead, there would be no Bolshevik Party, no 1905 revolution, and no 1917 revolution. Every country’s working class must have its own Communist leaders; otherwise, leadership cannot be realized.
Of course, if our Western friends do not understand the motives of the actions of the Soviet government, and are often forced into dead ends by our enemies, this not only shows that our friends are not good at arming themselves as well as our enemies—[original added by the editor—editor’s note]—but also indicates that we have not fully informed our friends and armed them. We will do our best to make up for this deficiency.
You said that enemies slander and spread rumors about the USSR, and we rarely refute them. Indeed, enemies do everything to spread rumors and slander about the USSR. Sometimes, refuting these rumors feels awkward because they are so absurd. For example, they wrote that I led the army to oppose Vorošilov and killed him, but six months later, they discarded what they had said and wrote in the same publication that Vorošilov led the army against me and killed me, which clearly means Vorošilov killed me after his death. Not only that, they also wrote that I made an agreement with Vorošilov, etc. Is there even a point in refuting this?
Romain Rolland:
But precisely because we do not refute or clarify, slander becomes rampant.
Stalin:
Perhaps you are right. Of course, we could respond more forcefully to these absurd rumors.
Now I will respond to your opinion on punishing children over 12 years old. This decree is purely for educational purposes. Our intention is less to deter children with hooligan behavior than to deter the organizers of hooligan incitement among children. It should be noted that in our secondary schools, there are gangs of 10-15 unruly boys and girls whose goal is to beat the best students and role models or to drag them down. Such incidents have occurred: these hooligan gangs trick girls into adults, get them drunk, and turn them into prostitutes. There have also been cases where these gangs pushed outstanding boys into wells, injured them, and intimidated them in every way. It was also found that adult bandits organized and manipulated these hooligan juvenile gangs. Obviously, the Soviet government cannot ignore these crimes. The promulgation of the law is to deter and strike against adult bandits, protect our children, and keep them from being corrupted by hooligans. Please note that at the same time we issued a decision banning the sale and possession of Finnish knives and daggers.
Romain Rolland:
Why not make these facts public? If they are published, everyone will understand why this law was enacted.
Stalin:
It’s not so simple. The USSR still has many abnormal individuals, such as former gendarmes, police, Tsarist officials, and their children and relatives. These people are unaccustomed to labor, full of hatred, and form a ready-made criminal basis. We are worried that making these hooligan crimes public might influence these abnormal people and incite them to commit crimes.
Romain Rolland:
That’s right, that’s right.
Stalin:
Can we explain that this law was enacted for education, to prevent crimes, and to deter criminals? Of course not, because then the law would lose all effectiveness against criminals.
Romain Rolland:
No, of course not.
Stalin:
I want to tell you that so far, we have never used the most severe articles of this law against criminal children, and we hope not to do so in the future.
You asked why we do not publicly prosecute terror criminals. I will illustrate with the case of Kirov’s murder. Perhaps, out of hatred for terror criminals, we were indeed emotionally involved in this matter. Kirov was a very good person. The murderer of Kirov committed a heinous crime. This inevitably affects us. The 100 people we executed legally have no direct relation to the murderer of Kirov. But they were sent by our enemies from Poland, Germany, and Finland, all fully armed, with the task of conducting terrorist activities against Soviet leaders, including Comrade Kirov. These White Guard members openly admitted their terrorist intentions in military court. Many of them said, “Yes, we have wanted to destroy the Soviet leadership past and present; you have nothing to say to us, just shoot us if you don’t want us to kill you.” We think it would be too generous to try their crimes in an open court with defense lawyers. We all know that after brutally killing Kirov, these terrorists also planned to kill other leaders. To prevent this from happening again, we had no choice but to execute these men. This is the logic of the regime. The regime must appear strong and fearless in such circumstances. Otherwise, it would not be a regime and could not be recognized as such. Members of the Paris Commune apparently did not understand this; they were too weak and indecisive, for which Marx criticized them. They failed, and the bourgeoisie did not forgive them. This is a lesson for us.
Because of Kirov’s murder, we adopted the death penalty; we do not want to use this method against criminals in the future, but unfortunately, it depends on us not.
Furthermore [added by the editor—editor’s note], it should be pointed out that our friends are not only in Western Europe but also in the USSR. When Western friends suggest that we should be as tolerant as possible to enemies, our Soviet friends demand firmness, such as executing Zinoviev and Kamenev, and the planners of Kirov’s murder. This must also be taken into account.
I want to draw your attention to a situation like this: Western European workers work 8, 10, or 12 hours a day. They have families, wives, and children to care for. They do not have time to read books or seek guidance from them. Moreover, they do not trust books much because they know that bourgeois intellectuals often deceive them with their works. Therefore, they only believe in facts—visible and tangible facts. These workers have discovered that in Eastern Europe, new peasant-worker states have emerged where capitalists and landlords are nowhere to be found, everyone participates in labor, and the laboring masses have never been so respected. From this, workers conclude that it is possible to live without exploiters, and the victory of socialism is entirely feasible. The existence of the USSR is of great significance to the revolutionary cause of workers worldwide. Every bourgeoisie in every country is aware of this and hates the USSR bitterly. For this reason, Western bourgeoisie hopes that our Soviet leaders will die soon. They gather terrorists, spend large sums of money, and use other means to send them via Germany, Poland, and Finland to the USSR. For example, recently we discovered terrorists in the Kremlin. We have a government library where some female librarians, who often visit the residences of our responsible comrades, were found to be infiltrators working for our enemies to carry out terrorist activities. Most of these female librarians are remnants of the class that once held power—the bourgeoisie and landlords—who have now been overthrown. What happened? We found that these female librarians carried poison, intending to kill some of our responsible comrades. Of course, we arrested them but do not plan to execute them; instead, we will imprison them. This is another example I give to show how rampant our enemies are and to warn the Soviet people to remain vigilant.
As you can see, the bourgeoisie is extremely cruel in opposing the Soviet Union, yet they boast in their newspapers about the cruelty and ruthlessness of the Soviets. They send terrorists, murderers, hooligans, and poisoners to us with one hand, while with the other, they write articles cursing the Bolsheviks as inhumane.
As for Viktor Serzh, I do not know him and cannot provide any information now.
Romain Rolland:
I do not know him either. I have heard that he was persecuted for following Trotskyism.
Stalin:
Yes, I remember now. He is not only a Trotskyist but also a fraud. This person is dishonest and secretly undermines the Soviet regime. He tried to deceive the Soviet government but failed. Trotskyists raised this issue at the Paris Cultural Protection Conference. Poets Gikhonov and writer Ilya Ehrenburg responded. Viktor Serzh now lives freely in Orenburg, as if he has a job there. Of course, he has suffered no pain or torture. That’s all nonsense. We do not need him and can send him to Europe at any time.
Romain Rolland:
(Smiling) Someone told me that Orenburg is a poor remote town.
Stalin:
It’s not a poor town, but a quite decent city. I was exiled to Turlukansk in the Transbaikal for four years, and that was a poor backwater—temperatures below -50 to -60 degrees. But it’s nothing; I got through it.
Romain Rolland:
I want to discuss another topic of particular significance to us, to Western European intellectuals, and to myself—the new humanitarianism. Comrade Stalin, the new humanitarianism was announced by you, and in a recent brilliant speech, you pointed out, “Talent is the most valuable and decisive capital among all valuable things in the world.” This is the new person and the new culture he creates. It thus proposes a new great path to realize proletarian humanism, uniting the spiritual strength of humanity, which can most attract the whole world to achieve revolutionary goals..The legacy of Marx and Engels, their intellectual community, and their spirit of rich inventions and creations are undoubtedly the least known areas in the West. However, this fact is destined to have a significant impact on us, who are highly cultured. I am pleased that recently our young intellectuals have begun to genuinely seek Marxism. Up to now, professors and historians have strived not to mention Marx and Engels’ doctrines or to belittle these doctrines. But now even universities are experiencing a new trend of thought. Professor Valoon of the Sorbonne University has edited and published a very attention-grabbing collection of speeches and reports — “Marxist Viewpoints.” The theme of this book is the role of Marxism in contemporary academic thought. If this movement can develop as I wish, we will be able to promote and popularize the ideas of Marx and Engels through this channel, which will have a major influence on the thoughts of our country’s intellectuals.
Stalin: Our ultimate goal, that of Marxists, is to liberate people from exploitation and oppression, making them free individuals. Capitalism exploits people, causing them to lose their personal freedom. Under capitalist conditions, only some extremely wealthy people can enjoy a certain degree of freedom. Most people cannot enjoy personal freedom under capitalism.
Roman Roland: Yes, yes.
Stalin: Since we have broken free from the bonds of exploitation, we have liberated individuality. Engels made a brilliant discussion on this in his book “Anti-Dühring.”
Roman Roland: It seems this work has not been translated into French.
Stalin: Impossible. Engels made a brilliant argument in this work, pointing out that: after smashing the chains of exploitation, communists should complete the leap from the kingdom of necessity into the kingdom of freedom.
Our task is to enable everyone to be liberated, to develop their talents, to make them love labor more and respect labor. Currently, our country is forming a brand-new situation, emerging with a completely new type of person who respects and loves labor. In our country, people hate lazy and idle individuals, and in factories, lazy workers are rolled up with mats and sent home. Respect for labor, love for labor, engaging in creative work, and launching a campaign of assault are the main themes of our current life. The assault soldiers are loved and respected by the people, and around them, our new life and new culture are forming.
Roman Roland: That’s right, very good.
I have taken up a lot of your time, I am really sorry.
Stalin: Not at all!
Roman Roland: Thank you for giving me this opportunity to talk.
Stalin: Your thanks make me a bit embarrassed. Generally, people thank those who do not expect good results from them. Do you think I would not warmly receive you?
Roman Roland: (standing up) Honestly, this conversation is extraordinary for me. I have never been so warmly received anywhere as I am here.
Stalin: Tomorrow is June 29th. Would you like to go to Gorky?
Roman Roland: We have an appointment; Gorky is coming to Moscow tomorrow.[^16] We will go to his villa together, and perhaps I will accept your suggestion to stay at your villa for a few days.
Stalin: (smiling) I don’t have a villa. We Soviet leaders do not have our own villas. This is just one of the many state-owned [editor’s note: bolded by the editor] backup villas. The villa is not provided by me personally but by the Soviet government, Molotov, Voroshilov, Kaganovich, and me.
Staying at this villa will make you feel very peaceful. There are neither trams nor railways there. You can rest well. This villa is always at your disposal. As long as you want to use it, you don’t need to worry about disturbing others.
Are you going to participate in the grand sports review on June 30?
Roman Roland: Yes, yes, I very much want to participate. Please give me this opportunity.
Maybe I will see you again and talk with you at Gorky’s villa or at the villa you kindly provided for me.
Stalin: I am always ready. I am entirely at your service and happy to visit you at the villa. I guarantee you will participate in the grand sports review.
The conversation was translated by Comrade A. Aroshyev.
<div align="center" h2罗曼·罗兰《莫斯科日记》： /h2 /d
> 28 June
> Friday
>
> Scheduled to meet Stalin at the Kremlin in the afternoon, I spent the whole morning thinking about what I would say to him.
>
> At 4 o’clock, Aroshev came to pick us up, to pick up Masha and me. After a long corridor and countless rooms with secretaries inside, the three of us were taken into Stalin’s office. The office is located on the upper floor of the building facing the Kremlin courtyard, next to which are the trophies (cannons seized from Napoleon during his retreat from Russia).
>
> The conversation began at 4:10 pm and ended at 5:50 pm. If I hadn’t been afraid of abusing Stalin’s patience, the conversation could have continued longer. During the talk, gusts of wind made the windows bang.
>
> Stalin does not look like the image in his portrait. No matter how I imagined, he is neither tall nor short and fat. Relatively speaking, he is short and very thin. His coarse black hair has begun to turn white. In the past year or two, he has probably aged. But his gaze remains straightforward and resolute, and his smile remains inscrutable. This smile may sometimes be kind, sometimes deep, sometimes indifferent, sometimes warm, sometimes firm, sometimes mocking, sometimes seeming willing to be happy for a while. In all cases, he can maintain complete self-control. He does not raise his voice when speaking, and his tone, somehow, has a nasal quality and is sharply piercing (people tell me this is a Georgian accent), with large pauses to allow him to consider everything, and he listens better than he speaks or acts. While listening, he notes down the main points of my speech with red and blue pencils on paper. (Unfortunately, I did not ask him for this paper.)
>
> We sat around a large table: he sat between us, I on his right, Aroshev on his left, Masha next to me. Aroshev wanted to participate in the conversation, claiming he would serve as a translator (Stalin, like all other People’s Commissars, does not speak or understand French), but his French is far from perfect, and Masha corrected him as much as possible.
>
> After the initial greeting (which I was very proud of), Stalin gave me the right to speak first, and I complied. He did not interrupt me and listened for 20 minutes.
>
> My speech was as follows:
>
> “Dear Comrade Stalin, please allow me to thank you for receiving me. Perhaps you have guessed that your name and your personal qualities mean a lot to us, realizing that you are in the leadership position of this great country, which is at the forefront of the new world, and this gives us in the West strength and confidence. I happily shook your hand and wanted to say that the attention shown to me in your country deeply moved me, especially your invitation to rest at your villa.”
>
> (Regarding what I mentioned above, Stalin pointed out that the villa does not belong to him, he has no villa, and the invitation came from the People’s Commissariat, i.e., Molotov, Voroshilov, Kaganovich, and himself, who provided me with one of the country villas near Moscow for my use. Guests coming to Moscow rest in those villas.)
>
> I continued: “Now, if you allow, I want to talk to you, whether as an old friend and comrade of the Soviet Union, or as a representative of the country that the West is concerned about, as a young man and a sympathizer of France.”
>
> “You know what the Soviet Union is in the eyes of many in the West. They vaguely imagine your country, but your country embodies their hopes and ideals, various and sometimes even opposing hopes and ideals. In the face of the profound economic and moral crises shocking the West, they are expecting the Soviet Union to point the way, establish main goals, and clarify their doubts.”
>
> “Of course, it is difficult to meet this expectation. The Soviet Union has its own tasks—the enormous work of construction and defense—and the country should devote itself wholeheartedly to this work because the best thing the Soviet Union can do is set an example for its own cause. Your painters are pioneering the way, proving their fidelity to the chosen direction. But the Soviet Union still cannot shirk the responsibility given by the contemporary world situation, a kind of ‘imperial’ duty to help other trusting countries. Saying Beethoven’s famous motto ‘Man, save yourself!’ is not enough; help must be provided, and advice given.”
>
> “To fulfill this task, it is necessary to consider the nature of each country and the characteristics of its ideology—now I will only speak about France. Not understanding a country’s ideology or treating it indifferently can cause— and sometimes is causing—serious misunderstandings.”
>
> “Do not expect the French public opinion, or even the sympathizers, to have the dialectical thinking that Soviet citizens are so accustomed to. According to their nature, the French are simple-minded preachers and talkers, not practitioners. If you want to convince them, do not forget this. Most of the French are used to discussing. Patience is needed to explain the reasons for what has been done.”
>
> “If I may, I want to point out that in the Soviet Union, little attention is paid to explaining the reasons for certain actions to foreign friends. Of course, there is logic in these actions, just and unchangeable logic. But politicians seem uninterested in revealing this logic. In my opinion, this is a serious mistake, and the result may be—and is—misinterpretations of some actions, which cause confusion among many sympathizers in the West. And because I myself have recently witnessed such doubts in France, I should report this to you.”
>
> “You told me that the role of sympathetic intellectuals also lies in explaining these reasons. We are not capable of such a task. First, because we are poorly informed: we lack the necessary materials for persuasion and explanation.”
>
> “I think, a center for mutual understanding of the ideas of law and socialism should be established in the West, somewhat like the Soviet Union’s external cultural association, but with clearer political goals. Since this has not been done, misunderstandings are accumulating, and in the Soviet dispatch agencies, including the embassy, no one feels uneasy because of this misunderstanding. Perhaps these people think that doubts will disappear over time. But doubts have not disappeared. They are deepening. To eliminate doubts, action should be taken at the first sign of misunderstanding. I want to draw your attention to the fact that different approaches are needed for French public opinion than for Soviet public opinion.”
>
> “Here are some examples.”
>
> “The Soviet government, according to court rulings and decisions, or according to special laws different from the recognized legal practice, makes certain resolutions. This is an inalienable right of the Soviet government, but these rulings often cause a great response, and the subjects of these rulings become objects of general attention: for various reasons, foreign public opinion shows more than normal interest in them. In such cases, it is better to avoid disagreements. Why is this not possible?”
>
> “You resolutely stop all participants in the anti-Kirov conspiracy, which is a hundred times correct. But when crushing the conspirators, please publicly present irrefutable accusations against them, proving the guilt of the convicted!”
>
> “Writer Viktor Serge was exiled to Orenburg for three years. This is a minor matter, but why for two years did no one stop it, so that this matter was exaggerated in Europe to an alarming extent? Why is it not understood that exaggerated or false explanations of this matter cause dissatisfaction? Why not explain from the beginning in the French public opinion the reasons why Serge is guilty, or prove that the rumors about his fate are completely unfounded? Why let the wound suppurate when the spear could be immediately pulled out? I take this example as a typical phenomenon. I do not know Serge personally. I am just a friend of some of his friends. I maintain a completely objective attitude. But I firmly believe that in a country that has experienced the Kharas case and the Dreyfus affair, allowing an exile to enter the center of public attention and become an object of demand for justice is very dangerous.”
>
> “There is also a different matter from what I just said: not long ago, your country passed a law concerning punishment for children from the age of 12. The provisions of the law are not very clear, but even the known provisions give a disturbing impression. If I understand correctly, children face the threat of death penalty. I can understand your motivation; you want to make those who could not be held accountable before, especially those who use children as accomplices in crimes, afraid. But not everyone understands this. People are worried that the law has come into effect, and children may become victims of abuse by city authorities, who will do as they please with their lives. This could cause a wave of protests. It is necessary to prevent this wave before it arises. Do not forget the influence of ideology on Western feelings! Emotional evaluations of events are of great importance to us. Even if such evaluations do not have a decisive effect on a firm government, they have a strong influence on weak and indecisive governments, and there are many such governments.”
>
> Now I will start talking about the most important issues today, about war and peace, and the attitude of the Communist Party towards war. In France, this issue should have been studied long ago. Many years ago, I warned Barrès and my friends in the “Huma” to pay attention to the dangers of anti-war movements caused by ignoring contemporary realities (I want to point out that when I speak about this issue, I am holding an objective view, that is, my view is more like theirs, because I have long been an advocate of the use of force in international conflicts). I think they do not see the differences between various forms of war, which is a serious mistake. Because war may break out, they must openly determine the stance they will have to take under certain circumstances. If I understand correctly, the Soviet Union, according to its ideals, needs peace and longs for peace. But your stance cannot be regarded as pacifist. The means and the true purpose must be distinguished. Our movement, born at the International Anti-War Conference held in Amsterdam in 1932, cannot do this. It is precisely now that the public has lost its way: not only pacifists but also the socialist views of the Soviet Union in France, and friends sympathetic to the Communists, are confused by the fact that the Soviet Union has established close political and military relations with the imperialist democratic government of France. This causes panic among the people. The major issues of dialectics and revolutionary strategy must be clarified. Moreover, it is better to do so as sincerely and frankly as possible."
>
> I stopped speaking here, although I had not finished what I had initially planned to say.
>
> I told Stalin: “These are the main things I want to say to you. Please forgive me for talking so long.”
>
> Stalin replied that he was very pleased to hear my speech. Then he also began to speak.
>
> He said: “May I answer all your questions?”
>
> Then he looked at his rough notes in red and blue, and began to speak, but not in the order of questions asked, but according to his own concerns. Perhaps I did not accurately recount the order of Stalin’s replies; I wrote it based on my memory. As for the exact order of Stalin’s remarks, it is preserved in the attached official record.
>
> He was completely honest, frank, and sincere. He did not impose his views on others. He said: “Perhaps we are wrong.” It seems he is always ready to reconsider his views: if necessary, to clarify the issues through experience, and to subject the issues to the test of experience.
>
> He tried to justify his actions. Regarding the hasty execution of over a hundred people after Kirov’s murder, he said that this went beyond the scope of legality and morality, and perhaps even a political mistake, but “we are driven by feelings.” These over a hundred people “did not directly participate in Kirov’s murder,” but they were still secret agents of Germany, Poland, Lithuania (or Latvia?). They must be punished, to scare others. Moreover, “we decided not to let these murderers (many of whom boasted arrogantly of their desire to kill) appear before the public in court!”
>
> Then he added: “We are very reluctant to convict and execute. This is a dirty business. It is better to keep one’s hands clean outside politics. But if we want to liberate the oppressed, we have no right to stay outside politics. Since we engage in politics, everything we do is no longer for ourselves but for the country; the country demands that we become ruthless and merciless.”
>
> Stalin said: “We have to consider not only the opinions of our foreign friends but also those of our comrades at home. Foreign friends accuse us of cruelty, and domestic comrades accuse us of being too lenient. We have minimized the death penalty. Even the accomplices of the assassination of Kirov, those who knew about the conspiracy, tolerated it, hoped for this murder, but did not actively participate, such as Zinoviev and Kamenev, we think it possible not to sentence to death. And our Soviet comrades are angry about this.”
>
> Regarding the law on punishing juvenile offenders: “Yes! This cannot be explained in the West.”
>
> “This is how it is! Our enemies in the surrounding capitalist regions are tireless. They infiltrate everywhere, send their spies into families and churches, and spread hatred among women and children. The facts themselves demonstrate this: not long ago, we learned that several young women from noble families managed to infiltrate around the leaders of the party to poison them.” (Stalin did not specify who he was talking about, but I recently learned that this story involves himself. A librarian, a woman who did not arouse suspicion, was caught trying to poison him—this happened due to the carelessness of People’s Commissar Yenukidze.) “The enemies incite these women to commit crimes, and these women imagine themselves as Charlotte Corday. The situation of children is even worse. Around 15 underground juvenile gangs have appeared everywhere; they unite, using knives as weapons, to kill ‘progressives’—excellent boys and girls (and not for political reasons, purely because these ‘progressives’ are good students). They are incited by adults paid by our enemies. They kill people, rape girls, force them into prostitution, and various other things. We only recently learned about this: when a girl is killed, it suddenly exposes facts from two or three years ago. The political work has consumed too much of our energy,” Stalin continued, “we care about collective farms, but I do not have enough time… When we learned about this, we were shocked. What to do? To thoroughly eliminate these bandits, we need two or three years. We will definitely achieve this. But to do so, we must make people afraid. We should use this repression law, threaten juvenile offenders from the age of 12 with the death penalty, especially their instigators. In fact, we have not used this law. Hopefully, we will not use it in the future. Of course, we cannot openly admit this: it would lose the necessary effect, the deterrent effect. But an order has been issued secretly, and we will pursue the adults who incited children to commit crimes mercilessly…”
>
> (Listening to the heinous crimes committed against women and children, I realized for the first time that we in the West had forgotten the fact that the Bolsheviks still face a long struggle against the cruelty, barbarism, and antiquity of Russia.)
>
> As for the overall policy of the Soviet Union, Stalin denied the possibility of giving orders to other countries. He said: “We are fully aware of the differences in characteristics and circumstances of different countries. We do not have the power to control them. Doing so would lead to a series of inevitable mistakes. We, the Russian Bolsheviks, were students of the German Social Democrats. What would happen if we imitated our teachers during wartime and after? Each party in each country must make its own decisions independently.”
>
> On the issues of war and political alliances, Stalin said: “It must be pointed out that there are two obligations: the obligation of the state and the obligation of the party. The Soviet state should strive to form an alliance with republican France: if such an alliance is achieved, it should be based on sincerity. Both sides should arm themselves and be prepared to help each other. Otherwise, who needs such an alliance? With the rise of fascism, the distribution of social forces in Europe has changed. Fascism—this is the end of all freedom and all possibilities for progress. It forces the communists, while there is still some freedom and possibility of action, to temporarily unite with the ‘liberal’ bourgeoisie of the West… but if fascism does not get this strength, we will let it all go to hell!”
>
> “The Communist Party of France,” Stalin continued, “should not stop the internal struggle against capitalism because of this. If Hitler’s men provoke war, the communists will rush to the front and shoot at Hitler’s men. But this does not prevent them from expressing their wishes to the government when they return. As for the endless covert sabotage in factories and warehouses, this is absolutely forbidden! The theory of communism has never regarded such behavior as a weapon. The October Revolution did not destroy a single factory; it took over factories.”
>
> Stalin said with a smile: “Mr. Trotsky seems to have forgotten a clause of the party constitution, which states that the communist country can form alliances with any capitalist country… he should remember this… but this clause has been canceled. There is no need to include it in the charter,” he continued, “when the situation requires, we will apply this clause in practice, and that is enough.”
>
> Then he asked if I was satisfied with his reply and if I wanted to ask anything else.
>
> I replied, “I also want to talk about other topics, more pleasant and joyful topics: for example, I am very interested in the issue of humanism, which you, Comrade Stalin, announced. In your recent speech, there was a very good phrase, which is ‘Among all resources in the world, the most precious and decisive is man’—the newcomer and his created new culture. Nothing can make the consciousness of the whole world turn towards revolution so quickly as the great proletarian humanism—the new road of proletarian humanism is the synthesis of the world’s consciousness forces. The philosophical part of the heritage of Marx and Engels is characterized by its revolutionary and creative nature. Until recently, this part was known to the minimum in the West, but it is precisely this part that can have the strongest influence on peoples with high culture like ours.”
>
> Stalin responded: He was pleased that I quoted his recent speech and the words about respecting man, and jokingly asked me again: “So you like this statement? … But many of our comrades oppose it. For 300 years, they have been used to being beaten, so they say: ‘Why respect us? No need to respect us!’”
>
> Stalin returned to the questions about humanism and the philosophy of Marx and Engels, and said some very good, warm, convincing words about the essence of Marxism, which is to help people break free from the shackles of necessity and gain freedom. The main goal is full personality—and he suggested I read “Anti-Dühring”.
>
> The conversation could continue, but I made a slight gesture indicating I wanted to stand up, because I felt embarrassed to stay so long. Stalin stood up. I expressed my thanks to him. Stalin does not like to be praised or thanked. About this, he sarcastically said that expressing thanks seems like he did not expect him to do so. He suggested we meet again. “How about Gorky?” “Very pleased.”
>
> The Kremlin’s photographer was called to take four or five photos of us.
>
> Goodbye.
>
> The conversation lasted 1 hour and 40 minutes. Aroshev was entrusted to record the conversation and make a copy for us.
I also know what you’re saying.