228

[introduction.]

p The Second World War was an historic event which affected the entire course of development of civilisation. The defeat of German nazism and Japanese militarism raised a powerful wave of socio-political change, weakened world capitalism and signalled the most devastating defeat of the forces of reaction and war. The balance of forces moved decidedly in favour of peace, democracy and socialism. This was the logical result of the world historical process expedited by the war, which had exacerbated to the utmost the contradictions within the capitalist system.

p Western historians do not deny the fact that the Second World War strongly influenced all further changes in the world. The victorious year of 1945 is sometimes referred to as "the most crucial year in the twentieth century”.  [228•1  Louis Morton describes the Second World War as "the decisive event of our own time, marking the end of one era and the beginning of another".  [228•2  The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff pointed out early in 1945, i.e., before the end of the war, that "the changes occurring were more comparable indeed with that occasioned by the fall of Rome than with any other change occurring during the succeeding fifteen hundred years".  [228•3 

While stating the historic significance of the results of the Second War, Western authors, as a rule, reject the objective character of the changes in the world and the logical course they take. They give their readers a distorted picture of the world historical process.

229

Main Results of the War

p The Second World War ended in the collapse and unconditional surrender of the Axis. The results of the war showed that no force in the world can crush the socialist system or bring to knees a nation loyal to the ideas of Marxism-Leninism, and devoted to its homeland.

p The victory of the Soviet Union in the Great Patriotic War meant more than the defeat of Germany, her allies and satellites, and in fact the entire military-political organisation of the states of the fascist bloc. It proved Lenin’s prophetic words that "any attempt to start a war against us will mean, to the states involved, that the terms they will get following such a war will be worse than those they could have obtained without a war or prior to it".  [229•1 

p The international prestige of the Soviet Union grew immensely, and so did its political influence throughout the world. One of the indicators of this process was the steadily expanding international ties of the Soviet Union: before the Great Patriotic War the USSR maintained diplomatic relations with 26 countries, whereas by the end of the war their number had grown to 52.  [229•2 

p The victory of the Soviet people had a great impact on world public opinion. People in the capitalist and colonial countries came to believe that the USSR, as a socialist country, is a bulwark of peace, democracy and social progress.

The General Secretary of the Central Committee of the French Communist Party, Maurice Thorez, voiced the sympathies of the French people for the Soviet Union in these words: "The incontestable superiority of the socialist system enabled the Soviet Union to play the decisive role in the destruction of Nazi fascism and in this way to save Europe from barbarous enslavement.

230 The alliance and friendship with the USSR have since become even dearer to the people of France, and still more desirable in the eyes of all French people fighting for their national independence.”  [230•1 

p Wilhelm Pieck, the first President of the German Democratic Republic and a veteran of the German workingclass movement, formulated the importance of the Soviet victory for the German people in this one sentence: "It would be no exaggeration to say that it is to the Soviet Union that the German people owe not only their liberation from the bloody Nazi domination andon one third of German territory—from the reactionary forces of German imperialism, but also their continued existence as a nation.”  [230•2 

p The leaders of the capitalist world also spoke with appreciation about how much the world owed to the Soviet Union. In his message on Soviet Army Day in February 1945 British Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote; "The Red Army celebrates its twenty-seventh anniversary amid triumphs which have won the unstinted applause of their allies and have sealed the doom of German militarism. Future generations will acknowledge their debt to the Red Army as unreservedly as do we who have lived to witness these proud achievements."  [230•3  The defeat of fascism and Japanese militarism in the Second World War was accompanied by a mounting democratic liberation movement throughout the world.

p In a number of countries of Europe and Asia, new weak links appeared in the world system of capitalism. The struggle of the peoples for independence, for liberation from German and Japanese invaders grew into a revolutionary movement against capitalist dominance, for the elimination of exploitation of man by man, for genuine democracy, for the establishment of a new just social order. This struggle culminated in the victory of the 231 socialist revolutions in a number of countries of Europe and Asia, giving rise to a world socialist system which extended from the River Elba in the west to the Pacific Ocean in the east. This was the most important event in world history after the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917.

p The emergence of the world socialist svsiem drastically dictugcu the situation in the world, i’rom then on the course of history was determined by the existence of and the struggle between the two world systems, one of capitalism and the other of socialism. Socialism has since grown into a force with a decisive say in international relations.

p The socialist countries are strengthening their positions in the world economy. In the period between 1950 and 1975 the average annual rate of industrial growth in the CMEA countries stood at 9.6 per cent, while in the advanced capitalist countries it was 4.6 per cent. The last several years have not been among the best for the national economy of the socialist states. Nevertheless the CMEA countries have kept up a rate of economic growth that was twice as high as in the advanced capitalist countries. The share of the socialist countries in world industrial production is growing steadily. In 1917, this share was 3 per cent, in 1939-10 per cent (only the USSR), in 1950-17.3 per cent (the USSR, the German Democratic Republic, the Bulgarian People’s Republic, the Hungarian People’s Republic, the Polish People’s Republic, the Socialist Republic of Romania), and in 1975- about 34 per cent  [231•1 .

p The victory of the Soviet Union in the Great Patriotic War generated a powerful upsurge of the working-class movement in the capitalist countries, increased the role of the communist parties which, in the years of the struggle against fascism showed that they were the most loyal and the most reliable defenders of the interests of the people. Back in 1939, there were 61 communist 232 parties in the world with a total membership of four million, whereas by September 1, 1945, the number of communist parties had increased to 76 with a total membership of 20 million Communists. Faced by the rising tide of democratic forces, the ruling elite in Italy, France and some other capitalist countries were forced to cooperate with the Communists, which created favourable conditions for the working-class struggle. At present, communist parties are an active force in 94 countries where their prestige with the masses is growing. In Western Europe alone, about 800,000 more people have joined the communist parties between 1970 and 1980.  [232•1 

The Soviet victory in the war had a powerful impact on the national liberation movement in the colonies and dependencies. Italy and Japan, two colonial powers, were defeated. The collapse of the German Reich brought an end to its plans for colonial conquests. Britain, France, Belgium, Holland and other metropolitan countries with colonial possessions had proved utterly incapable of defending the peoples of the colonies from fascist aggression. At the same time the participation of these peoples in the just war stimulated their national and class consciousness. The victory over the Axis in the Second World War made the liquidation of the colonial system of capitalism imminent. Over the years since the end of the war more than 100 new independent states have emerged in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The collapse of the system of colonial slavery under the pressure of the national liberation movement is an event of tremendous historic importance. The anti-imperialist policies of these states are reflected in the programme and the practical activities of the non-aligned movement.

Does the Postwar Arrangement Suit Everyone?

p The profound changes in the life of humanity ushered in a new era in the development of the world, 233 revolutionary process. This is precisely the reason why shortly after the end of the war, many reactionary leaders and policy-makers in the West, followed by bourgeois historians, declared the Second World War “senseless”, “redundant” and “unnecessary”.

p One of the first to describe the last war an “ unnecessary” was Winston Churchill. Speaking at Zurich University in 1946 he used the darkest colours to describe the situation in postwar Europe: "Among the victors there is a babel of jarring voices; among the vanquished the sullen silence of despair.”  [233•1  An American publication qualifies the results of the war as "a calamitous turning point in the history of mankind".  [233•2 

p “No other event of the past centuries deserves to be called a catastrophe so much as the Second World War,” laments Michael Freund (FRG). "No spiritual upheaval, no war, no revolution changed the world so drastically. In it died the order of things which had been in existence for hundreds of years.”  [233•3  Richard Hobbs writes that "the unconditional surrender of Germany upset the balance of power in Europe, and that of Japan had similar results in Asia..., therefore, not only Germany and Japan but the whole of Western civilization lost the war".  [233•4  A rare exception to this consensus of gloom and despair is the view offered by A.J.P. Taylor; "Those who experienced it know that it was a war justified in its aims and successful in accomplishing them. Despite all the killing and destruction that accompanied it, the Second World War was a good war.”  [233•5 

p The hatred of the imperialists for social change, for the freedom and independence of the peoples is so intense that the fact that mankind has been saved from fascist 234 enslavement is viewed by them as a catastrophe. In an article published in NATO Review an American professor, Robert Strausz-Hupe, makes this revealing assessment: "(1) At the end of World War II, the West’s primary influence in the Middle East, military, political and economic, was unchallenged; (2) In Africa, from Tangiers to Capetown, Western influence was paramount; (3) the Indian Ocean was a Western lake; and (4) the idea that the decision of a commodity cartel could cast the West into economic turmoil would have been laughed out of court.”  [234•1 

p Summing up the results of the Second World War from these positions, the reactionary historians have come down upon the wartime policy of the United States and Britain for the alliance they made with the USSR and for their assistance in defeating the fascist bloc.

p Professor Bruce Russett of Yale University tries to convince his reader that "had America remained in the status of twilight belligerence Germany probably would not have been defeated".  [234•2 

p There is a kind of regularity: the more reactionary the views of a historian or a political leader, the more cynical his statements in favour of an alliance with Nazi Germany against the USSR. They go as far as to declare President Roosevelt chiefly responsible for the Western Allies “conceding” the fruits of victory to Soviet Russia. They do not conceal the fact that the main result of the Second World War-the strengthening of the position of the Soviet Union and the forces of socialism in the international arena-does not suit the ruling elite in the United States, and lament over Roosevelt’s failure to take the opportunity of destroying the USSR, using the Germans and the Japanese to do the job. To justify this pro-fascist concept, the falsifiers of history resort to their 235 pet arguments of "Moscow s totalitarianism" and the “threat” to American interests. "The concentration of totalitarian striking power in a single center, Moscow, is more disadvantageous and menacing from the standpoint of American security than the distribution of this power among several centers, in Berlin, Tokyo, Moscow and Rome,” write the authors of Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace. "Moreover, communism is more dan;;-.-vous than National Socialism, Fascism, or Japanese authoritarianism....”  [235•1 

p In his memoirs Charles Bohlen, former U.S. ambassador to the USSR, joins in the criticism of the foreign policy of the Roosevelt Administration and even tries to smear the reputation of the President and his close associates Hopkins, Stettinus, Harriman and other American political and military leaders who were in favour of a more realistic policy in U.S. relations with the Soviet Union. Bohlen says, for example, that Harriman never "really fully understood the nature of the Soviet system”, and adds that the U.S. military attache in Moscow, Colonel Faymonville, "was not very useful because he was inclined to favor the Soviet regime in almost all actions...".  [235•2  Bohlen is careful to say that he himself was totally committed to anti Sovietism. "Yet in those days l found it almost impossible to convince others that admiration for the extraordinary valor of the Russian troops and the unquestioned ’heroism of the Russian people was blinding Americans to the dangers of the Bolshevik leaders,” he writes.  [235•3 

p Bourgeois historians criticise Roosevelt’s policy not only for its own sake. Their more long-range goals are directly linked with the present-day policies of the imperialists, and so they are trying to discredit the wartime antiHitler coalition and thereby undermine the faith of the people of capitalist countries in the possibility of peaceful 236 cooperation with the socialist countries, ostensibly because this cooperation "has always served the interests of Moscow alone”.

p The well-known reactionary and pro-fascist French magazine Lectures francaises writes: "History was developing in a direction opposite to that expected by the political leaders who thought that it was they who made history. Hitler lost the war because he had misjudged the direction of British policy. Churchill lost his victory because he had failed to understand in time that it was necessary to alter the trajectory of the policies of the democratic powers long before Germany was defeated.”  [236•1 

This is the general concept of the results of the war in the interpretation of bourgeois historians and memoir writers who use it to justify- directly or indirectly- the policy of the imperialists today.

Whence the Threat to Peace?

p “After the grandiose battle came to a finale and the enemy was defeated,” wrote Leonid Brezhnev, "the main participants in the anti-Hitler coalition did not follow the common road of building a stable peace but parted ways. To use a metaphor, hardly had the ink dried on the Instruments of Surrender, signed in Berlin by representatives of the USSR, USA, Britain and France, when our former Allies began breaking the links that tied together the main participants in the war against German fascism".  [236•2 

p The responsibility for this policy rests chiefly with U.S. imperialism, which is harbouring plans for establishing its domination throughout the world. Back in 1940, Virgil Jordan, President of the National Industrial Conference Board (USA), said: "Whatever the outcome of the war, America has embarked upon a career of imperialism, both in world affairs and in every other aspect of her life.”  [236•3  237 It is true, though, that while the war was in progress, the United States carefully camouflaged its aggressive goals. American historians Joyce and Gabriel Kolko have come to this conclusion: "Essentially, the United States’ aim was to restructure the world so that American business could trade, operate, and profit without restrictions everywhere. On this there was absolute unanimity among the American leaders, and it was around this care that they elaborated their policies and programs.”  [237•1 

p The American atomic monopoly created the illusion that world domination was now within the grasp of the U.S. In that situation the Truman Administration started preparations for another war. "The Russians would soon be put in their places.... The United States would then take the lead in running the world in the way that the world ought to be run,” Truman prophesised.  [237•2 

p The atomic bomb had turned Truman’s head, and not only his. "In the meantime,” said ex-President Herbert Hoover, "it gives the United States and Britain the power to dictate political policies to the whole world.”  [237•3 

p Arthur Schlesinger, in his book The Crisis of Confidence, also notes this postwar turnabout in U.S. foreign policy which incorporates the brainwashing of the world public into accepting the reactionary politics of the United Statesboth domestic and foreign. Anti-communist and antiSoviet propaganda have become part of the daily routine of the American administration.

p The key element in this propaganda now is the myth of a Soviet threat, which has been developed into principal ideological weapon, meant to defend and justify the policy of the cold war and the arms drive, in fact any aggressive action of the imperialists, in whatever part of the world: against Afghanistan or the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia or Poland, Korea or Vietnam, Laos or 238 Kampuchea, Lebanon or Egypt, Cuba or the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua or El Salvador. The myth of the Soviet threat is used as a screen behind which to generate hatred and suspicion of the Soviet Union, the other socialist countries, uie working-class and the national liberation movement.  [238•1 

p At the time when President Truman was assuring Stalin of his "sincere desire to work together to restore and maintain peace”, the commander of the Allied forces in Europe, General Eisenhower and his staff had sent to Washington a plan for starting a war against the Soviet Union, later codenamed Dropshot. When all details were filled in, the plan was endorsed by President Truman. The implementation of this plan was at the centre of the entire foreign and domestic policy of the United States, and later of its allies in NATO and other Western blocs.

p The Dropshot Plan epitomised the policy of the United States, and today provides an excellent understanding in retrospect of Churchill’s call for a crusade against socialism which he ’made in March 1946 in Fulton, in the presence of HarryTruman. It gives an insight into the sources of the cold war and McCarthyism, into the reasons for the negative assessments of the results of the Second World War and the myth of a Soviet threat as a means of deceiving the American people and the world public with regard to the true aims of the policy of the United States.

p The plan for an attack on the Soviet Union came to light when certain American documents were made public in 1978. These show that the attack was to be started under the false pretext of an alleged Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Moreover, the plan provided for all-out military actions with the unlimited use of nuclear weapons and for participation in them by all nations on all the continents. In other words, the American plans provided for unleashing no less than a third world war.

p One of the striking features of Dropshot is its class character. "The gravest threat to the security of the United 239 States (i.e., the power of the American monopolies—Author.}... stems from the nature of the Soviet system”. The principal political goals of the projected war, as revealed in the above documents, were to destroy the roots of Bolshevism by destroying the USSR and its allies, to restore capitalism and colonialism, and to establish American world domination with the help of NATO.

p The strategic objective of Dropshot was formulated in these words: "In collaboration with our allies, to impose the Allied war objectives upon the USSR by destroying the Soviet will and capacity to resist, by conducting a strategic offensive in Western Eurasia and a strategic defensive in the Far East.”  [239•1 

p The plan was to be carried out in four stages.

p First stage-a surprise attack with weapons of mass destruction upon the territory of the USSR, especially its more thickly populated areas (300 atom bombs in 30 days). This initial attack was to be continued with atomic and “conventional” (250,000 bombs) weapons.

p This massive air attack was to immobilise 85 per cent of Soviet industry and about 95 per cent of the industry in the other socialist countries, with a total of 6,700,000 civilians killed.

p Second stage- preparation for offensive operations with a view to invading the territory of the USSR and its allies. Air bombings were to continue, with NATO completing the concentration of 164 divisions (including 69 U.S. divisions) and 7,400 aircraft on the borders of the USSR and the other socialist countries. The naval force was to carry out landing operations from 24 escort aircraft carriers and about 700 warships of the main classes. The armed forces of NATO, also of Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa were in that period to control all ocean and sea communication lines.

p Third stage—seizure of the territory of the USSR and its allies by the armed forces of the United States and other 240 NATO countries. These objectives were to be achieved using not only atomic weapons, but also other weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical, biological and radiological. It was specifipu that "in this campaign emphasis has been placed on physical destruction of the enemy’s ability to resist.”

p Fourth stage-the establishment of an occupation regime on the territory of the USSR, which was to be split into four occupation zones, with American troops stationed in the key cities of the USSR, also in Gdansk, Warsaw, Sofia, Prague, Budapest, Bucharest, Constanta, Belgrade, Zagreb, Tirana and Seoul.

p The American strategists did not stop at that. After the defeat of the Soviet Union and its allies in Europe and of the Korean People’s Democratic Republic in the Far East, they planned to occupy the Mongolian People’s Republic, China and the whole of Southeast Asia, also to crush " procommunist revolts" in Indochina, Malaya, Burma and other areas, in other words, to suppress the national liberation movement in the whole world and to restore the colonial domination of imperialism.

p In accordance with the Dropshot plan a total of 250 divisions with a total of 6,250,000 troops were to be moved against the USSR, with another 8,000,000 operating in the air force, the navy, the air defence and support troops. The total number of troops operating under U.S. command was to reach 20 million.  [240•1 

p The American strategists also outlined broad-scale operations under a special programme of "psychological warfare”, as part of Dropshot, aimed at undermining the morale of the Soviet population and using traitors (“dissidents”) against the Soviet system. "More effective resistance, however, in this form of organized sabotage and guerilla activity would be unlikely to develop significantly until they are assured of guidance and support from the West.”  [240•2 

p Such was the American idea of fighting a "preventive 241 war" against the USSR and the other socialist countries under the Dropshot Plan, which remained in force until 1957.

p British plans for war with the Soviet Union followed more or less the same pattern.

p In July 1981, The Times wrote that between January and July 1946, Britain’s Joint Chiefs of Staff worked out their own plans of war against the USSR, which included the use of bacteriological weapons. In June 1946, they submitted a special report to the Cabinet on future trends in the development of armaments and methods of warfare. The authors of this report had made a detailed study of the possible use of atomic and bacteriological weapons against the USSR. In their evaluation, bombers based in Britain could hit 58 Soviet cities with a population of over 100,000 each, located within 1,500 miles of British military airfields. If the flight range of British bombers were extended to 1,850 miles, another 21 major Soviet .cities could come within their reach.  [241•1 

p However, .the American and British plans for war with the USSR, using weapons of mass destruction, proved to be utterly unrealistic. After the Second World War the Soviet Union built up such economic and military power that the warmongering imperialists would have been unable to break it down. A most serious blow to these plans was the end of the American monopoly of the atomic weapons. The Soviet Union developed its own atomic, and later, hydrogen weapons and equipped its armed forces with it. Truman wrote in his memoirs: "Our monopoly came to an end sooner than the experts had predicted.”  [241•2  The creation of powerful intercontinental missiles in the Soviet Union, as well as the successful launchings of Soviet space satellites and spaceships, dashed the last hopes for America’s superiority and its global export of counter-revolution. A world war, should it break out, would be equally dangerous for the United States, the citadel of world imperialism.

p The rough parity achieved in the 1970 induced 242 substantial adjustments in the U.S. aggressive plans. Nevertheless, the main political aim of imperialist reaction remained unchanged: to weaken socialism, to undermine the unity of the socialist countries, to prepare for war and, if an opportunity offered, to destroy the Soviet Union by military means.

p American ruling groups continue to plan long-term political actions against the Soviet Union. Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, former C-in-C of the U.S. Navy, writes in Grand Strategy for the 1980s: "The Soviet Union is clearly the main antagonist of the United States.... Since today and for the foreseeable future the principal obstacle to the achievement of American goals is the Soviet Union.... We need to marshal political and economic force to promote our own interests and frustrate those of the Soviet Union.”  [242•1 

p The arms manufacturers and the men in the Pentagon are still "thinking about the unthinkable”, of starting a nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union. A senior official at the Council on Foreign Relations, L. Sigal, has said that the development of new weapons systems has prompted the American military strategists to review discussions on the possibility and expediency of nuclear war against the USSR.  [242•2  Now they are busy working on the theory of “small”, “local” nuclear wars which the American imperialists hope will help them achieve their strategic objectives. In the summer of 1980 President Carter signed Directive 59 on "the new U.S. nuclear strategy" which allows of fighting limited nuclear wars in areas far from the United States, and primarily in Europe.

p Speaking at the 35th session of the UN General Assembly, Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Gromyko exposed this strategy as dangerous and adventuristic. He said: "Using all these totally irrational disquisitions about the -possibility of some sort of ‘limited’ or ‘partial’ utilisation of nuclear weapons to cover up their real aims, the authors of this strategy are trying to plant in people’s minds the 243 idea that a nuclear conflict is both possible and acceptable. This reckless concept serves to increase the risk of nuclear catastrophe, which cannot but cause alarm everywhere in the world".  [243•1 

p The Reagan Administration which took office in 1981 set off a new steep spiral in the arms race in the United States and its NATO allies. The most dramatic move in this direction is the decision to site medium-range missiles in Europe and to start production of the neutron weapons, which threaten the security of all nations.

p The Soviet Union is waging a consistent struggle for peace, for the mutual limitation of strategic offensive weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. "At the same time there is no room for doubt that in the light of these American actions, the Soviet Union will make an appropriate assessment of the situation and will take the necessary measures to ensure its security and the security of its friends and allies,” reads a TASS Statement of August 14, 1981, in connection with President Reagan’s decision to start the production of the neutron weapon.  [243•2 

p Many researchers in the West find the claims of the Reagan Administration about "the Soviet threat" utterly unconvincing. In his new book Michael Howard, Regius Professor of History, Oxford University, notes cautiously that: "...the feeling is general in Western Europe that American perceptions of the Soviet threat owe as much to internal factors in American policy-military-industrial pressures and, even more important, the need to rediscover national self-confidence after the humiliations of Vietnam and Watergate-as they do to the actual behaviour of the Soviet Union".  [243•3  Nevertheless, preparations for a new war are going forward on an increasingly large scale.

p In just the years of Reagan’s administration the United States has: 

p —begun the production of a new first-strike weapon, the MX intercontinental ballistic missile, warheads of intensive 244 radiation (neutron weapons) for the Lance tactical missiles and artillery shells; 

p - sent the B-l strategic bomber on its first transatlantic flight to Europe; made operational giant nuclear-powered submarines of the Trident series, equipped with the newest types of ballistic missiles; 

p - completed the testing of new nuclear-missile systemsPershing-2 medium-range missiles and cruise missiles-and began deploying them in Europe; 

p - developed a programme for expanded production of new toxic chemical agents; 

p - set up a Military Space Command under the Pentagon.

p In 1983/84 fiscal year, the United States plans to raise its military expenditures to 280 billion dollard and is to funnel more than three-quarters of its budget into war preparations by 1986, all that at the expense of social security, medical service, housing, and other public needs.

p But it would be wrong to assume that the White House is thinking of nothing but building up its weapons stockpiles to prepare an attack on the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries, and turn Western Europe into the hostage of U.S. security. That is not all, for over the long term it is only a prelude to the secret plans of the American imperialists to dominate the world, to Americanise the globe.

p In one of its many propaganda brochures, called Soviet Military Power (1983), the Pentagon takes exception to the growing number of nuclear warheads in the USSR. But who has forced us to take this step? Who has turned a deaf ear to Soviet appeals not to start a new round of the arms drive?

p The USSR and the forces supporting it are the main obstacle to the implementation of the hegemonistic plans of the USA. That is why the main blow is to be spearheaded against the Soviet Union. One cannot ignore the dangerous plans and actions of the American imperialists.

p The consolidation of the forces of peace, democracy and socialism was something that followed the Second World War in the natural course of events, but is now being used by the international reactionary forces to justify the arms drive, the U.S. and NATO policies, which go against the interests of 245 the peoples, also to camouflage aggressive plans which threaten the very existence of mankind.

p Defying the incontrovertible facts and documents, Western historians try to present the aggressive policy of the United States and its NATO allies as some sort of "reaction to imperialistic advances made by the Soviet Union to establish a domain of economic and political influence”.

p Referring to the effect of the Western propaganda media, historian Andrew Rothstein, a veteran of the British Communist movement, wrote that a citizen of a socialist country would find it rather difficult to understand to what extent the overwhelming majority of the people in Britain are ignorant of the very existence of the Soviet disarmament proposals, to say nothing of the details. So dense has been the cloak of silence in the capitalist media and political speeches.

p This could well be applied to the people in the United States and other capitalist countries.

The Soviet Union has never sought world domination, nor will it ever do so. It is the anti-Soviet policy of the ruling elite of the United States and Britain that has left its simister mark on the development of the international situation after the war.