Skip to main content

Full text of "Investigation of un-American propaganda activities in the United States. : Louis F. Budenz. Hearings"

See other formats




Given By 





<'\^T* ^-^^ 






ON » ^ 

H. Res. 5 



NOVE.MBER 22, 1946 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Un-American Activities 



94456 WASHINGTON : 1946 


JOHN S. WOOD, Georgia, Chairman 

JOHN E. RANKIN, Mississippi J. PARNELL THOMAS, New Jersey 

J. HARDIN PETERSON, Florida KARL E. MUNDT, Soutli Daliota 


HERBERT C. BONNER, North Carolina 

Ernie Adamson, Counsel 
John W. Carrington, Clerk 



House of Ilf:PKESENTATivES, 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington, I). O. 

The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. John S. Wood (chairman), 

The Chairman. Let tlie committee be in order. Do you have some 
evidence to present, Mr. Adamson? 

Mr. Adamson. Yes. ^Nlr. Chairman. I want to call the witness 
Louis Budenz, a professor at Fordham University. Mr. Budenz is 
here under subpena. 

The CiFAiKMAN. The witness will be sworn. 

(Whereupon the witness was sworn by the chairman.) 

Mr. Adamson. Xow, Professor Budenz, will you give your name and 
address to the reporter. 


Mr. Budenz. Louis Francis Budenz, 26 Manhattan Avenue, Crest- 
wood, Yonkers. N. Y. 

Mr. Adamson. What business or profession are you in? 

Mr. Budenz. At present I am assistant professor of economics at 
Fordham University. 

Mr. Adamson. Prior to your affiliation with Fordham University, 
what did you do? 

Mr. Budenz. I was assistant professor of economics at Notre Dame 

Mr. Adamson. Prior to your work at Notre Dame, what did you do? 

Mr. Budenz. I was managing editor of the Daily Worker and presi- 
dent of the Freedom of the Press Company, Lie, the corporation that 
controlled and managed the Daily Worker. 

^L-. Rankin. When you say the Daily Worker, do you mean the 
Communist Daily Worker? 

Mr. TkDENz. i mean the official organ of the Communist Party in 
the LTnited States. 

Mr. Rankin. And that is published in New York City ? 

Mr. Budenz. That is correct. 

Mr. Adamson. How long were you affiliated with the Daily Worker? 

Mr. Budenz. Well, I was a member of the Connnunist Party for 
10 years; years a member of the national committee, and originally 
I was labor editor of the Daily AVorker for approximately 3 years. 



Then I \\'as editor of the Midwest Daily Record of Chicago, likewise 
initiated by the Communists, for approximately 3 years, and from 
1940 on I was president of the Freedom of the Press Corp. 

Shortly thereafter I was made also the managing editor of the Daily 

Mr. Adamson. Now, Professor Budenz, I understand that you have 
prepared some testimony which you are willing to give to this com- 
mittee concerning the activities of certain officials and members of the 
Communist Party and their organization, not only in the United 
States but also in other parts of the world. Are you prepared to 
proceed with your statement ? 

Mr. Budenz. I am prepared. 

Mr. Adamsox. Will you please go ahead in your own words ? 

Mr. Budenz. As I understand it, specifically, this appearance be- 
fore the committee under subpena was a result of a speech that I made 
from Detroit over the radio on October 13. In that speech I asserted 
— and I will file with the committee a recording of my speecli over 
the radio later so tliat the exact wording can be brought before you — 
that the Communist International exists in fact, if not in form; that 
is to say, I asserted that international connnunications with Moscow 
continue to exist and what are approximately instructions from Mos- 
cow continue to be given to the Comnuuiist parties throughout the 

I further said that a specific individual here was the equivalent of 
a representative of the Communist International. I used that speci- 
fic phraseology because it was the phraseology given to me officially 
by the representative of the political committee of the Communist 
Party of the United States. This incident I shall refer to later on. 
I therefore wish to repeat this .specific phraseology; namely, that a 
certain individual operating in this country was the equivalent of the 
representative of the Communist International in the United States. 

Mr. Rankin. Will you insert your radio speech in the record at this 
point ? 

Mr. Budenz. I will insert the recording of the speech. I do not 
have it with me because I was afraid of breaking it, but I will send it 
to the committee and file it. 

This opens up, of course, a wider vista than just this particular 
matter of this particular individual. I referred to certain articles 
written by this man, and as a result of that Frederick Woltman, of 
the New York World-Telegram independently discovered that this 
man was Hans Bei-ger, otherwise known as Gerhart Eisler — which is 
his correct name, Gerliart Eisler — Woltman iiulependenty pul)lished 
this fact. I, therefore, confirmed this fact at tliat time, although I 
had originally said that I would make the statement first to a respon- 
sible agency of the Uuited States Govermnent, that is, the statement 
as to who the man in question was, the specific name of the individual. 

I would like to say, before going further, that in this present 
testimony I have no aninuis against auy ])articular member of the 
Communist Party. There is no personality involved; however, I do 
think it is time, from my experience, to raise the little iron curtain in 
the United States. 

'\^nuit is the little iron cui'tain? It is the refusal in many (juarters 
to permit a frank discussion of what the Comnuuiist Party actually is. 


Anyono wlio ondoavors to toll the truth about the Coniniiiuisl T*ai-t y is 
irroetiMl with shouts of "witch hunt." '"vvd haitci-/" and things of that 

I chiiin that tlio honest, normal Aniorican citizen has a i-i^ht to 
know the fact.s without this oil'ort to put down a cuitain upon the 
activities of the Conmuniist Party. 

With that understanding- I will pioceed with a statement con- 
cernin«r this radio speech. In the first place. I must <j;ive the back- 
oTound of the Connnunist Party and its opei-ations — wliich led to the 
speecli beino- made. 

Afr. Rankin. I miaht say to you. the little iron curtain has been 
raised here, and you may proceed with your statement. 

Mr. BuDENz. That is very <>:ood to know. 

Of course, this little iron curtain is carried forward by certain 
imliviihials. many of whom know not what they do. They are imposed 
upon the Communists and are sarcastically known by the Com- 
nmnists as "the soft-headed and soft-hearted liberals," They are 
used because of their naivete, to do many things that the Communists 
cannot do themselves. 

We must understand, then, before we get to the meat of the matter 
that we are dealing with a conspiracy to establish Soviet dictatorship 
throughout the world. This conspiracy resorts normally to illegal 
methods. This conspiracy requires the utmost servility on the ])art 
of the so-called Communist leaders in various countries throughout 
the world. It makes puppets of this leadership, as shown in the case 
of William Z. Foster or Earl Browder, 

At the present moment this conspiracy is directed specifically 
against the peace and safety of the United States of America. Those 
are serious charges, but they can be fully confirmed. You must also 
know the background of this business in order to appreciate this one 
instance before us. That is, the reference to Berger-Eisler is oidy 
an incident, but the point of the matter is that it is an incident which 
illustrates what the American people should know much more about. 

I say this conspiracy is to establish the Soviet dictatorship through- 
out the world. There is so much evidence on that I even hesitate to 
try to add further confirmation. But we have such confirmation in 
the activities of the Communist Party itself in the United States. 
Never throughout its history has the Communist Party found one de- 
fect of any kind in any leader of the Soviet Union who was endorsed 
by the Kremlin. You can search the Daily Worker or any. other 
Communist i)ublication from beginning to end for '2^ years and you 
will find that alwaj's the Soviet leadership is 100 percent perfect in pages — they have godlike qualities that prevent any flaw being 
found in them. Secondly, this movement follows Moscow in every 
detail. P^xamination of the official Comnnniist ])ress will con- 
firm this, that the policies desired by the Ki'emlin are followed out 
servilely by this organization and its leadership. That stamps it im- 
mediately as something set off from the rest of America, as a quisling 
organization as much under the heel of the Kremlin, oi- at the behest 
of the Kremlin, as the Xazi bund was the agent of Hitler's Germany. 

Of course, no one can appreciate fully or vividly what destruction 
of intellectual integrity is involved in this mattei- mdess he has l)een 
an official Communist and gone through the process. America is 


totally ignorant of what takes place back of the little iron curtain. 
I will give you one or two examples of this matter to confirm further 
what I have to say. 

Now, in regard to the matter of the Soviet dictatorship, we have the 
statements by gentlemen of outstanding importance, such as Mr. 
Molotov, as to the intentions of the Communist International move- 
ment and the Soviet Government. There has been no bashfulness on 
this question. Mr. Molotov in 1928, in a statement that I have publicly 
quoted before, declared over and over again in a speech to the Lenin- 
grad functionaries of the Communist Party that the sole aim of the 
Communist International is the establishment of "world proletarian 
dictatorship." And he did not only say that once ; he repeated it over 
and over again in that speech, so that it would be driven home. 

In 1935, at the seventh congress of the Communist International — 
and this was the congress which was supposed to bring democratic 
organizations and nations in alinement with the Soviet Union, or the 
Soviet Union in alinement with them — the promise of Soviet dic- 
tatorship throughout the world was continued. As a matter of fact, 
Wilhelm Piek, the chairman of the seventh congress, stated specifically 
that their objective was Soviet power, everywhere, their banner was 
the banner of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, and that their leader 
everywhere was Stalin. In order to make this still more emphatic a 
special resolution of personal fealty to Stalin was adopted at the 
seventh congress of the Communist International in which the Com- 
munist leadership there from all over the world, including the Com- 
munist leadership of the United States, pledged itself to unending, un- 
bending devotion — and those are not the exact words, but I shall file 
a copy of that resolution with the committee: the words here give 
the idea — unending, unbending devotion to Stalin as their leader and 
teacher. And this was enthusiastically endorsed by the leadership 
of the Communist Party from the United States who w^ere present, in- 
cluding, and specifically including, Earl Browder. 

I have said that this conspiracy engaged and engages in illegal 
activities. We have the case of Mr. Browder's false passport, and 
that is more or less a typical condition among Communist leaders — 
'"Krumbein technical difficulties'' they are called. 

The treasurer of the Communist Party, Mr. Krumbein. at least he 
was recently the treasurer, and, by the way. he is personally a nice 
enough gentleman — spent 18 months in prison because of a false 
passport. In fact, when I entered the party I had to delay my ac- 
quaintance with him because he was in jail at that time under the 
false passport charge. We can find that Mr. Ben Gitlow, referring to 
the time w^hen he w^as general secretary of the party, in his book I Con- 
fess reproduced a copy of a false passj)ort under which he traveled. 
When the Hitler-Stalin i^act came around there were so many of the 
leading comrades who had "technical difficulties'' that ]n"actically ev- 
erybody was going underground at tliat time. They put on mustaches; 
they went down to Florida as "tired businessmen," and they disaj)- 
peared. In fact, some of them disaiij^eared for almost 2 years. As a 
matter of fact, what brought tliis sjiecifically to my attention was the 
fact that they wanted me to disappear: they AAanted me to go to a 
hotel and register under an assumed name and remain away from 
home. I refused to do this because, as I said. "What is the matter 


with me? As an AiiuM-ican, I can stand out in tho liuht of day." So 
it was a<:!:i'i't'd thai I did have this exemption, and it was found very 
surjn-isinir that anyone in a h'adin^ position ^YOuhl not have some 
"teclniieal dilhcuhy/' 

Mr. Kankix. Ixepeat the name of that man who spent some time 
in prison. 

Mr. BuDENz. Cliarles Krumhein. He spent 18 months in prison. 

Ml". Kan KIN. AVhere is he now? 

]\Ir. BuDKNz. Well, he was national treasurer of the Communist 
Party, and that was when 1 left the or<ranization. 1 have no animos- 
ity toward Mv. Krumbein, but I mention that as a fact to prove the 
illeffal aeti\ities of the jnirty. 

Mr. Rankin. Do you know wliere he is now? 

Mr. BuDExz. I do not know specifically at the moment. 

I mentioned j\Ir. Gitlow, though, likewise, to show that this illegal 
work is a tradition in the party. That does not mean that everyone 
is engaged in it, but there is enough of it to make it a system and 

Further than that, this conspiracy's illegal work is now directed 
against the United States, and we have had enough evidence on that 
surely tluit somebody ought to realize this. 

We Avill take, for example, the Jacques Duclos article written 
in 1945. which deposed Browder from leadership. 

]\Ir. Raxkix. Before you go on further, you made a statement just 
a few moments ago that "this is directed against the United States." 
Do you mean directed toward the overthrow of the Government ? 

Mr. BuDEXz. I mean that the Soviet Government has now revealed 
through my experience in discussions within the Communist Party the 
fact that it is engaged in a war of nerves against the United States on a 
general pattern similar to that carried on by Hitler's Germany, but 
with its own variations, and that this war of nerves will go to the point 
of military conflict. That is, according to the design of the Soviet 
Government, it can go to the point of military conflict. At any rate, 
it is a war of nerves designed to undermine the Government of the 
United States. 

Mr. MuxDT. You do not think there is any danger of its going to 
military conflict as long as we have the atom bomb and they do not 
have the atom bomb ? 

Mr. BuDEX^z. That is another question. I am only disclosing what I 
learned and not my opinion in the matter. However, I would like to 
go further and state that a responsible person will not say what I am 
saying without grave reasons. These reasons come about from the 
experience that I had over a number of years. 

\ye will take, for example, the Duclos article of A])ril 1945 which 
deposed Mr. Browder. That article states very definitely that the 
Tehran Pact is "only a diplomatic gesture." Wliat is the Tehran Pact? 
It was the agreement between Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt that 
there would be generations of peace. The Soviet Union, through Mr. 
Duclos. takes the initiative in stating that this pact is only a diplomatic 
gesture. It was certainly understood by every trained Communist 
leader that if the Tehran Pact was to be torn u]) as a diplomatic 
gesture, it would mean that the era of })eace seeking was over regard- 
less of what form the new era may take. 


Secondly, Earl Browder was deposed as a "revisionist'' for standing 
on the platform of Teheran and assuming that the pact was something 
ihat was going to last for quite a period of years. For that he was 
declared a revisionist, which incidentallv constitutes as great a crime 
on the right in Communist eyes as being a Trotsk>ite is on the left. If 
3^ou are a revisionist, 3'^ou are "an enemy of the Soviet Union, the work- 
ing class, and the Communist Party" according to Conununist ideas. 
And Mr. Browder, who had been one of the most servile agents of 
Moscow, its wills, whims, and wishes, was surprisingly and suddenly 
confronted with that accusation. 

Of course, we can see immediately that when Mr. Browder was 
confronted with the accusation that fact gave notice to every Com- 
munist leader throughout the world that the relations with the United 
States had changed. If he were deposed, as a revisionist for holding 
onto the Tehran Pact, why, necessarily, the whole idea that the 
Tehran Pact was a valid pact was to be disposed of. In addition, 
certainly the sharp disciplining of Browder showed that a future up- 
holding of the Tehran Pact, and the idea back of it of peace with the 
United States, was fully incorrect. It was even hostile to the views 
of the Soviet Union. 

I will try to return later to confirm further evidence that I could 
give in regard to discussions on this matter within the Conununist 
Party. Though I do not wish to take too nuich time with this initial 
background, that background is very important. 

Now, that brings me to the fourth stej), the acts around Browder's 
expulsion that showed the Quisling nature of the Conununist Party. 
I wish to try to reserve the possibility of referring later, however, to 
certain discussions around the Duclos article. I want to show, how 
subservient the leadership, so-called, of the Communist Party is to 
the will, whim, and wish of Moscow. 

Prior to the Duclos article, Earl Browder was applauded for half 
an hour every time he appeared, even in a secret national committee 
meeting. Not only that, he was hailed as the greatest Marxist-Lenin- 
ist in the Western Hemishere. Not only that, every member of the 
national committee would declare at every meeting that he agreed 
fully with the report that Browder would make. Browder would 
speak from 2 to 4 hours in the national committee at each of its 
sessions, and then everyone present would state that they were in 
agreement with his proposals 100 percent. 

It was disclosed later, as Browder was being deposed, that these 
agreements with his )K)licy had been written before the national 
committee members even knew what he was going to say. The na- 
tional committee members of the American Party thus actually 
wrote their commendations of Browder's reports before they knew 
what the report was going to include. And this was confessed by 
men and women, one after another, in the secret luitional connnittee 
meeting in June 1945. I have never seen such a confessiim of in- 
tellectual degradation as was shown by this exhibition in the national 
committee meeting. Some of the confessions have been pi'inted. 
They have been Avatered down but printed. One of them is the 
confession of Elizabeth Flynn. I cannot give you the exact wording, 
but you can considt the article (»f SejHember 1045 in Political Affairs, 
which is the official theoretical organ of the Conuniuiist Partv: for- 


nu'ily known as the Coinnmnist. In this issue Elizahcth Flynn says 
that ahhouiih she is a nu'iiihcr of the j)oli(ical couiniiltcc — iho so- 
calhMl j)o\viMful six who are supiiosed to inn the party — she has not 
had any iiulei)en(hMit tliotiirht or action thiouuhoiit that pei'io(h And 
the reason she says tiiat this was the case is that slic was told tlial 
she "did not know theory." 

Now. yon can sec how convenient in intiniichitinf; people it is to 
say they have a lack of knowled<re of theory. When two or three 
select Coniiniuiist leaders iiave a thou<xht that they want to ])nt over 
to their comrades, but which they cannot explain fidly because it is 
not their thou<rht.- having: been handed to them, they can char<xe you 
cannot understand them because you do not know Marxist-Leninist 
theory. Elizal>eth Flynn. a leader of the Conununist Party, could 
not have one indivichial thoiiiiht or act because she was accused of 
not kn(nvin<r theory. She was paralyzed intellectually. This is con- 
fessed b}' her in print, though wtitered down from her ])revious speech. 

Then there is the case of William Z. Foster, the luitional chairman 
of the party. He declared, and this is i)artly in print likewise, that 
he did not dare raise obje<^tions that he had to Browder's policy be- 
cause he was afi'aid of being expelled from the party. Imagine one 
of the leaders of the party, the national chairnum, not daring to 
express an opinion because he is afraid of expulsion. That shows 
the servility with which these things are carried out. 

If you will look at the history of the Communist Parties, you will 
find that there is always a left and right leader as a rule kei)t on ice 
in every i)arty. Then one can be pulled out on this occasion and an- 
other can be pulled out on another time, like marionettes when policy 
changes or the line changes. Foster had a left reputation and was 
always trying to jump the line ahead of time. He always thought 
that he saAv another change was going to be made and he was always 
trying to be ahead of time. 

In 1044. as a conse^iuence. he wrote a letter to the national committee 
criticizing Browder"s policies. This letter was voted down by the 
national connnittee after a very hurried session, but in addition it was 
suppressed. This is testified to by Foster himself. It is testified to 
in print in this same article. Xot only was his letter suppressed, in 
addition, no national connnittee member was allowed to keep the 
letter, and not one of the rank and file of the Comnuinist Party knew 
that it existed, knew that their national chairman was in disagree- 
ment with their general secretary. 

Gentlemen. 1 onlv got to look at that letter in a fragmentarv way 
as managing editoi- of the Daily Worker, and I was not even allowed 
to hold it in my hands by the member of the ]K)litical connnittee who 
showed it to me. I got a glance at it. but I did not know its real con- 
tents because it had to be very hurriedly looked at. No national 
committee member in this country was allowed to keep it or study it. 
But. lo and behold, this letter appears later in the hands of Jacques 
Duclos, hundreds of miles away in France. The letter not oidy ap- 
pears there, but he .studies it. and he quotes from it, and he commends 
part of it, a letter which the American national committeenu'n were 
not even allowed to study. A gentleman across the seas was allowed 
not only to study it but to quote, comment, and commend that letter. 

Mr. MuxuT. Who suppressed it ^ You were not allowed io hold it? 

94456 — 46 2 


Mr. BuDKXz. The national committee suppressed it, and Earl Brow- 
der suppressed it. I will come to that later. 

As a matter of fact, I might say here that conspicuous in helping the 
suj^pression was Mr. Eisler as Hans Berger, 

Agreement with Tehran was then the line. Foster was jumping 
the line, although this letter was very conveniently used later on to 
demolish Browder in the way that they wanted to demolish him for 
the time being. 

Not only that, I will call your attention, gentlemen, to Mr. Browder's 
statement on this Duclos' article, and this is very significant. In 
introducing this article to the readers of the Daijy Worker, and I 
noted this particulai'ly at the time as managing editor, Mr. Browder 

This undoubtedly represents the opinion of all the leading European Marxists. 

Just appreciate the significance of that observation. By some stroke 
of genius Earl Browder knows so quickly that all the leading Euro- 
pean Marxists think him to be a criminal "against the Soviet Union, 
the Communist Party and the working class." Those phrases go to- 
gether in the definition of "a revisionist." He knows that he has been 
condemned by all Marxist leaders in Europe. And I ask you. How 
could he know that without close organizational international com- 
munication? How could he know in double-quick time what all the 
leading European Marxists thought ? And yet in print Mr. Browder 

This undoubtedly represents the opinion of all the European Marxists. 

This Duclos article which condemns him, mind you, as a revisionist. 
I want to ask you further, who is the "leading European Marxist"? 
We know from the resolution of 1935 that it is "the teacher and leader" 
Josef Stalin, and by his little phrase Mr. Browder was able to ac- 
quaint every trained Communist everywhere — certainly he acquainted 
me and I think everyone else — with the fact that this Duclos view 
was approved by Moscow; this was the voice of authority. And I 
want to tell youthat the national committee recognized it and knew 
it as the voice of authorit3^ Here was Browder, who had been cheered 
for half an hour for years every time he appeared at a secret national 
committee meeting. In fact, this practice is testified to by the Com- 
munists in print ; it is said that there was overadulation of Browder. 
And lo and behold, at the first national committee meeting in June 1945 
when he appeared to state his view on the Duclos article only :> of the 
80 that were present would speak to him. I think you will agree that 
was a very powerful article that Mr. Duclos wrote. Suddenly you 
can change cheers to social ostracism; not just disagreement. As a 
matter of fact, Mr. Browder had not yet had an opportunity to speak 
there, when no one of the committee woidd talk to him but three, and 
I was one of the three. I always have had the reputation among the 
Connnunists of being a sort of American-trained sap, anyway. I had 
said that as a newspaperman, I would have to follow the practice of 
the working press. In order to get cooperation, I could not make 
faces at those out of step with the Connnunist Party. I always con- 
tended that when you went to a convention as a representative of 
the press you had to talk to people whether they were friendly or 
hostile. An exemption was granted me on this ground and I took 


lulvantaiiv of i( in I his casi'. I spoke to Browcler and I noticed (hat 
only two others did at that time. As a luattei- of fact, he felt this 
ostracism keenly, because he sat most of the time with his head in l>is 

The leason that I hiin^- this before you is to show in a vivid bird's- 
eye way the complete subserviency of the Connnunist leadershi]) here 
in Aniei-ii-a to decisions that accord with the wishes, wliinis, and will 
of Moscow. 

Mr. MrxDT. In that connection. I think it would be helpful at this 
point if you could nuike the tie-up. if there is one, between Duclos and 
Stalin. because tlie Duclos article brou<iht about this ixreat chanjie. 

Mr. Bi DKN/.. Jacques Duclos is the ofeneral secretary of the French 
Communist Party. Stalin was the general secretary of the Com- 
munist Party of the Soviet Union, and is still its leader. They were 
all membei's' and officials of the Connnunist International until the 
Communist Internatioiuil was declared dissolved. Mr. Brow^der made 
the tie-up. He made the tie-up when he said, "Undoubtedly this is the 
opinion of all leading European Marxists." Anybody that is a trained 
Communist, and certainly almost anyone else, ap}M-eciates the fact 
that if this is tlie opinion of European Marxists, it must be the opinion 
of Stalin as the leading "leading European Marxist"; not only the 
leading "leading European Marxist" but the leading Marxist of the 
world, as he has been proclaimed in various resolutions. 

I have merelj' brought these matters up to give the background of 
what we are considering. Of course, in such a conspiracy as this, you 
do not have signs around saying, "Kilroy was here." Documentary 
evidence is very thin, indeed, but there is plenty of other evidence to 
show this conspiracy, from what I have already indicated; evidence 
that could be followed up in nnich nioie detail, if we had time. But 
the basic thing that the American people should know" is that here is an 
organization in America that judges all Americans according to their 
degree of subserviency to the Soviet Union. A leader in America is 
applauded in proportion as to how he agrees with the particular will 
of Moscow at any particular time, and the record proves it. This is 
not something drawn from any oral discussion; this is the record 
which a study of the Connnunist press will show. 

And. I learned from experience, this conspiracy proceeds to de- 
nounce anyone who disagrees with the Soviet policies at any particular 
time as a Fascist. A Fascist, in Conmnmist lingo, is anyone wiio dis- 
agrees with the Soviet Union, its aims and its aggressions. In that way 
the title "anti-Fascist" was often conferred on those who had worked 
actively with Hitler, because now they have turned over to helping the 
Soviet totalitarianism. As time went on. I learned this as managing 
editor of the Daily Worker. 

I remember very decidedly in tlie i-ecent past about certain collabora- 
tionists who for years were collaborating with Hitler, and I was told 
to represent one or another of them as anti-Fascist heroes. We will 
take Rola-Zymierski. the Minister of Defense in the Polish puppet 
state. Although he had a ])ro-Fascist record, he had to be portrayed 
as a leading anti-Fascist. And yet, through all that period, the Amer- 
ican workingmen had been told that a non-Fascist was 

Ml". Kaxkin (inteiposing). And in this period you mean when? 


Mr. BuDEXz. Any particiiUir period, thoiioli I was referring specifi- 
cally to the latter part of World War II. But I might say tliat the 
title "Fascist" depends on whether a jMiblic figure disagrees with the 
Soviet Union ; a Fascist, I repeat, is one who disagrees with the Soviet 
Union, in Communist parlance. 

That is what I found out by actual experience in trying to get facts 
about the collaborationists. There was the case of George Tatarescu 
of Rumania, whose hands drip with blood of democrats and the Jewish 
people, who was notoriously helpful to Hitler. He was named Foreign 
Minister b}^ Vishinsky and has cooperated in the terror there by the 
combination of brown and red Fascists. Because they were now with 
the Soviet Union, we were com])elled to call them leading anti-Fascists. 
It's serving the Soviet dictatorship that counts. 

That brings me more specifically to the matters at hand. 
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Budenz, I do not know whether it will distract 
your attention or not, but as I understand it connnunism is a system of 
world revolution, planned world revolution ; is that correct ? 

Mr. BuDExz. It is, except that today there has been an emphasis 
which forms itself into an expression of a new phase of this totali- 
tarianism, world domination by conquest. I mean to say that the 
Soviet dictatorship intends to establish world dictatorship, specifically 
nnder the leadership of the Kremlin, specifically under the leadership 
of Stalin. 

Mr. Raxkix. In what Avay does this form differ from our form of 
government ? 

Mr. Bfdexz. That is a long story, Mr. Rankin ; rather it would take 

fpiite a while. I think that we can say that 

INIr. Thomas ( interposing) . I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that ques- 
tion be reserved. 

Mr. Rax-^kix'. I will reserve the question. 

The Chairman. Suppose we let the witness proceed, Mr. Rankin, 
in his own way. 
Mr. Raxkix'. Yes. 

Mr. BuDExz. The first thing I have brought forward in a general 
way is the intent of this Communist conspiracy and what is involved 
in the Quisling role of the Communist Party. We can see that Foster, 
the national chairman, was so afraid to express his opinion that he per- 
mitted the suppression of his view for fear of expulsion from the 
party. They would not carry forward the discussion in America ; it 
had to go to "a higher authority.'' The discussion had to be had 
through the medium of Jacques Duclos, speaking for Moscow, when 
the matter came up. And as I have said. INIr. Duclos had the benefit of 
knowing what the American leaders of the Communist Party were 
denied, the benefit of the letter written by Foster and the comments 
made. Of course, it is obvious that there was international conununi- 
cation; thei-e was a continuance of an apparatus like that of the Com- 
munist International. 

As a matter of fact, Browder had gone to ^lexico City a couple of 
years befoi-e, and had exjjelled most of the members of the national 
committee in the INIexican party and also the general secretary. And 
certainly he would not have been able through his own magnetism 
alone to" perform that action. He had powerful credentials for that 
j)urpose, the understanding that his act was in accord with Moscow 


I stated in this radio hioadcast at Detroit on October 1)5 that the 
man representino; this international apparatns in the United States 
Avas "tlie eqnivalent to a repi'esentat ive of tlie Conniiuuist Interna- 

I was ollicially advised of this fact in those terms by En<;ene Dennis, 
in 1942; sometime in li)4"i. Dennis was then the representative of the 
(\nnnninist Party's Political Committee to the Daily Woi'ker. 

I wish to state to the committee here that I have not as yet had the 
opportnnity to considt the files of the Daily Worker. It is quite 
possible had I done so that I would have been in an even better posi- 
tion to <iive dates more specifically, and I shall volunteer to this com- 
mittee to make it my duty to be more specific by filin*^ a statement 
later giving the dates in particular months if i)()ssible. That will 
require, however, a study of the files of the Daily Woi'ker. These 
matters I s])eak of are referred to indirectly in the Daily Worker, 
or are connected by associations with events reported in the Daily 

At any rate. Mr. Dennis had been one of those leading Communists 
who were untlerirround and in hiding for quite a while during the 
Hitler-Stalin pact. In going undei- ground he had disappeared com- 
pletely, except that once in a while I would get a note from him. That 
note was not even signed with his own hand writing; it was just a type- 
written note. Of course, there are interoffice memoranda in many 
organizations, but this was from one of the men you did not see. And, 
in such notes instructions were given to you from nowhere. Some- 
times those instructions came orally from whoever at that time was 
acting as the liaison officer Avith the political committee of the Com- 
munist Partv. You must understand that the political committee 
always has one of its members act as a representative of the committee 
to the Daily Worker and he generally sits in Avith the editorial board 
for that paper. At least, if he does not always sit in at such meetings 
he is resixjnsible for comnuniications between the political committee 
and the Daily Worker. 

That person is changed from time to time. For a Avhile. back quite 
some time, when Hathaway Avas the editor, this representative Avas 
Alex Bittleman: and then it became another person, and so on, as 
changes were made. 

And then after he came out of hiding Dennis became the representa- 
tive of the political committee — Foster had acted just before that; 
there Avas a short interim during which the functi(m lay betAveen 
Foster and Dennis. And at that time, in 1942, Dennis told me one 
day that he had to go to AVashington, and thei-efore took up the 
Berger mattei- Avith me. A year before he went under ground, in 
connection Avith a secret matter. He had had a conference with me 
and he was going to AVashington again on it — at any rate. Dennis had 
previously told me about this mattei' and T must l)ring this out in 
order to give the i-elationship Avith Pjerger. Dennis had told me of a 
"technical difficulty" under which he Avas suffering and asked my 
opinion, if I could not use my influence with a certain gentlenuin iii 
Washington to do something about removing this technical difliculty. 

This gentleman's name I shall furnish to the conunittee in executive 
session, but he has nothing to do Avith the Communist Party and it 
Avould not be fair to him to bring his name into this public discussion. 
He Avas an official here in Washington, and I had known him: I had 


known him in the Middle West, and I was asked by Mi-. Dennis if I 
could advise whether that official could help cret him out of this 
technical difficulty. 

I said, "It depends entirel}' on what the technical difficulty is." 
Generally a Communist does not talk about another's technical diffi- 
culty, nor does another comrade disclose his own difficulty unless in 
great urgency. However, I said, in order to form my judgment I 
would have to get some idea what the technical difficulty was, in this 
case. Dennis then said it was somewhat siuiilar to the Krumbein 
difficulty. He added something about use of "an Irish name."' In 
other words, it looked to me as if Dennis had something like a false 
passport case, though he did not state that specifically, and that he 
wanted help in such a case. At all odds he wanted urgent assistance 
on a "difficulty" or record which he wished removed or remedied. 

I told him that I could not recommend the gentleman in Washing- 
ton because I did not know what his attitude in things like that 
would be; that he had a general liberal attitude toward the Conmuniist 
movement, but I could not guarantee what it would be in such a case. 
Now, later on in 194^ — and when I say later on, I will have to check 
with the Daily Worker files as the exact month — ^Ir. Dennis came to 
me again when acting as political committee representative to the 
Daily Worker, and said, "Do you suppose the man in Washington is 
still the same in his attitude?" Dennis stated he had to go to Wash- 
mgton and wanted to be informed; and I said something to the effect 
that all I could say that the official we had talked of was about the 
same in his views. 

Mr. Rankii^. Write the name of that man on that paper [indicat- 
ing] for the committee's use. 

Mr. Thomas. Let us get the name in executive session. 

Mr. Rankin. Very well. 

Mr. BuDENZ. And, as I say, and you gentlemen will later learn, that 
gentleman is not in any way connected with the Connnunist uiove- 
ment; that he, as a matter of fact, so far as I know, was certainly not 
always friendly to Connnunists in his judgment and conduct — that 
was the reason I spoke of him as I did. Dennis added to me that the 
case in question was pretty well straightened out. But he went on to 
say that he had had this matter up with Hans Berger and that it was 
agreed by them that they should so arrange it that in this instance 
they should be fully protected. The case should be made airtight. 

In connection with his being away from time to time, Dennis said 
to me that I might occasionally receive instructions and communica- 
tions from this Hans Berger. Dennis told me further that Berger 
was strictly underground, and that he was known l\v Dennis as a 
responsible comrade who had been in China and Spain and many 
other places, "including the United States, as you nuiy know." 

These were his words, as stated specifically. "That Bergei- had func- 
tioned previously in China, Spain, and here in America, as you may 
know." Dennis then said that Berger was "equivalent to a repre- 
sentative of the Communist International, and that I was to consider 
him as such." To advise me fully. Dennis added that Berger's real 
name was Gerhart Gisler, and that he functioned or was to function 
among the "German comrades here" as such. 

However, he added that I might come to learn that Gisler was a 
brother of Ruth Fischer, whom Dennis called a Trotskvite. but I was 


not to associate him with "such Troskyite liUh"; that ho was a tiiecl 
and tested comrade and was therefore a man in a position of autliority. 

Now. I would like to say to you that in the Connuunist Party some- 
one who miirht appear to lie in authority would not necessarily be out 
in the open. It was natural for those actually running the party to be 
hidden undei-irround. 1 found this out early in m^' Connuunist career. 

When I tirst came into the Connuunist l*arty I was one of the 
best-informed men on the labor movement; I had been editor of 
Labor Age for years, on whose board were representatives of AFL 
luiions that later formed the CIO; I had been to hundreds of labor 
union meetings and had become accjuainted with many ollicials 
who later became national representatives in the labor movement. 
So that I knew labor men very well. What was my surprise on 
joining the Comnumist Party in 11).'55 and working on the Daily 
W^orker, to find all kinds of mysterious men I had never heard of 
running the Communist show. They were then located right in the 
Connuunist national headquarters — men operating under pseudonyms. 
There Avas a man by the name of Edwards; there was a Brown, and 
there was a Peters — the last man changed his name so much that it 
kept me busy trying to remember what the name was. 

I was frequently embarrassed as to what I was to call him — J. V. 
Peters, Jack Roberts, or whatever the new name might be. 

And I was amazed to find, gentlemen, that there were men here 
in the American scene who had no stake or interest in America who 
were directing the running of things Communist. They were at the 
national headquarters of the Communist Party then, never operating 
under their right names but under obviously conspiratorial names. 

Shortly after I became a member of the Daily Worker staff I was 
named labor editor of the Daily Worker. That was in late 198.5 or 
early 1986. I had joined in October 1935, as a result of the People's 
Front program adopted by the Communist International that year, 
and I was a People's Front Communist. In one of the early meetings 
I attended as labor editor — or that I attended in being notified I was 
about to be labor editor — I found out who really runs the Communist 
organization in this countrv. It is whoever is the connnunications 
officer, who conveys the line, the representative of the Communist 
International. I came into that jneeting of the editorial board of the 
Daily Worker, unprepared for any such revelation. 

When lo and behold to my surprise in walked Mr. Edwards; he 
did not even introduce himself to the editorial board, but in he walked 
and proceeded to flay Hathaway for almost an hour, declaring him 
to be unfit to be editor of the Daily W^orker. that he was more inter- 
ested in his picture on the front page than ""he is in running the paper" 
as it should be run, politically. And I was amazed at this because 
of Hathaway's position, as represented by the daily press at that time, 
as one of the Big Three running the party. But Edwards came in, 
and Edwards was the representative of the Communist International, 
and he flayed Hathaway, and Hathaway did not do anything but 
sit there with a silly grin and had to take this trouncing. That was 
quite an education for me. 

I realized that this was not the party it represented it to be, but 
a puppet apparatus of the Soviet (jovernment. But I said to myself 
that the big thing now is to beat Hitler and the Axis. When Hitler 
is overcome, I persuaded myself, the Soviet Union apparatus will 


become more democratic. That was the way I deceived myself. As 
a matter of fact, my experience shows tliat the Soviet autocracy has 
become worse, as we shall see. It was }Hetty astounding to me just 
the same, at that time, to see that the Communist Party was managed 
by people who had no connection with American life, that they were 
simply imported in here in order to control this organization and to 
command men like Hathaway, who had an American background, that 
he was to do whatever was wanted by this individual who had the 
autliority from Moscow' to tell Hathaway how^ to act. 

And so after that I was oi)en eyed on these matters — oh, by the way, 
I am satisfied, gentlemen, and were this not a case of dealing with 
conspiracy, I would say definitely that Edwards was Eisler. I am 
firmly convinced of it, and I think that further inquiry will show that 
that is the case. If this were a normal case I would say definitely 
that it was so, but we are dealing with a conspiracy and in this sort 
of action it is possible for the Communists to trot out false state- 
ments. Although I think we can prove it from the records and files^ 
I will just say that I believe very strongly this man Edwards was 
Eisler. He did not wear glasses then as now ; he did not have the 
emaciated look of the present at that time. But lie had taken quite 
a beating in the intervening years. As a matter of fact, he actually 
has the same characteristics, including the peculiar movement of his 
head as he walks. 

The main point is that there was this representative of the Com- 
munist International in the office and his name was Edwards; I saw 
him in action in lOoo and V-VM'} — right along. Then there was Brown, 
Avliose real name was Alpi, supposedly an Italian, and many others. 
Now, as a matter of fact, the Peters mentioned had written a pam- 
phlet for the Communist Party long ago under the name of J. V. 
Peters, and that places him. As a matter of fact, it was Peters who 
introduced me to the idea of the cons])iratorial api)aratus of the 
Communist Party. He is a ])leasant num, too, so far as that goes. 
He told me that the Connnunist Party is like a submerged subnuirine; 
the part that you see above water is the periscope but the part undei'- 
neath is the real Comnumist organization; that is the conspiratorial 

And, as a matter of fact, I fomid that there were various rings in 
this conspiratorial apparatus, ami difi'erent sections, one of which is 
the Soviet police system here and another the Connnunist Interna- 
tional apparatus. 

Then there is also the use of certain m<Mnbers of the party who 
noi'mally are in ])ublic life, the use of them illegally aiul secretly, 
sending them to Latin America, and to Canada, and other places 
secretly. And, as a matter of fact, sometimes a person who has been 
a district organizer will suddenly come to yoii and say that he is going 
to Mexico or to some other place and by the questions he asks you 
know he is on a secret mission. 

I might state here that the foreign editors of the Daily Woi'ker are 
very closely in touch with this consi)iratoi'ial ap]iaratus of the j)arty, 
although they do not always know what all individuals are doing. 
As in all conspiracies the right hand often does not know what the 
left is doing. Some of the Soviet Government's representatives do 
not know what is being done by others, as is indicated bv what occuri-ed 
in the Canadian espionage trials wheie it was disclosed that the Soviet 


Ambai^sjidor himself did not know in detail of the activities of the 
military ospionaiie. 

A comrade can be pulled out and put in confidential work but at 
the same time he will not know what others in confidential work are 

I know that because I was in confidential work at one time. I had 
an awful time of it trying to explain to other comrades what I was 
doinfj, since I had to conceal my true activities. 

When I say I was in confidential work I was not out of the United 
States, or anytliing of that sort, but here in the United States I was 
in confidential work for the party and I can therefore speak with 
some knowledge on this matter. 

Returning to Berger specifically: I did receive from time to time 
note>; sent by him when Dennis was away. These stressed in par- 
ticular that the second front in Europe was important, and ham- 
mered at the imi:)ortance of talking about the Soviet Union to the 
American people. Those were some of the notes I recall. There 
were others, of course, from Berger and from others. 

His method of sending notes from hiding places was not peculiar 
to Eisler-Berger. Stachel had been underground longer than any- 
one else, for example,, and during that time I got notes from him 
about the things the Daily Worker should do ; I got those notes from 
Stachel largely through Foster, then the liaison officer with the 
Daily Worker. There were a number of those and I cannot recall 
them all now, but I can give you one as an example. It was con- 
nected Avith ^lay Day, ID-Jtl, for that day we received a communica- 
tion from abroad which had a peculiar name attached to it that I 
did not recognize; it was a peculiar name, but it was evidently a very 
important communication. There was an indication in it that the 
Soviet Union was disturbed about Hitlers entering Yugoslavia and 
Greece, and I was eager to know for sure who the author of that 
statement was. The information was supplied mysteriously from 
his hiding place by Stachel, who impressed me with the (Dimitroff) 
article's importance, indicating that it was written by Dimitroff for 
the Communist International. I got this information through Foster, 
who said that Stachel stressed that the article should be emphasized 
by the Daily Worker. 

That is an example of what took place, which is remembered by me 
now because it was a rather important document. I received many 
other notes from undergi'ound, from Dennis, and occasionally from 
Stachel : more frequently when they were underground I received 
these communications either through those who were representatives 
of the political connnittee to the Daily Woi'ker or through those type- 
written notes which of course had no signature, but which were known 
to be genuine from the fact that they came from the ninth floor, 
because the ninth floor is the national headciuarters of the Communist 
Party. The eighth, incidentally, is the floor of the Daily Woi'ker. 
These notes came from the ninth floor where the responsible peo- 
ple were known to be lr)catod. people responsible for such state- 
ments, so far as the Communists were concerned. Some of the notes 
that I received from Berger were in regard to the Soviet Union, the 
necessity of emphasizing the Soviet's importance to America, par- 

94456—46 3 


ticiilarly so-called Soviet democracy. Sometimes this was not so 
easy, because I was to learn that there was no democracy in the 
Soviet elections. Particularly in 1943, a striking incident came to 
my attention that illustrated this. I was advised not to print that 
some republics had gone so sour that approximately 90 percent of their 
people were against the Soviet Government. The information then 
given me was that they were so sour, these republics had to be sup- 
pressed. Now, these same republics, if you will look at the elections, 
really voted 90 to 95 percent for Stalin. Of course they did not have 
any other ticket to vote for; they had no other choice except that 
they could have voted against that ticket, but the elections were very 
overwhelmingly for Stalin. And that information about the "treason" 
of these republics told me eloquently of the "Ja" character of the 
Soviet elections. 

But the notes from Berger particularly emphasized the necessity 
of bringing to the American people the alleged democratic character 
of the Soviet Union, and the language he used was very em]ihatic. 
In addition, once in awhile he expressed his opinion very definitely 
through the political representative of the political committee, who 
brought instructions from Berger to the Daily Worker. When the 
question came up of the United States being the Soviet Union's chief 
foe, as a result of the Duclos article, Berger-Eisler gave what was 
almost a decision. At that time a dramatic debate took place in the 
office of the Daily Worker, for 3 weeks, over which I presided as chair- 
man, whether the United States was a hopelessly capitalistic country, 
in the light of the Duclos article. 

James Allen, foreign editor of the Sunday Worker, asserted that 
the United States was a hopelessly capitalistic country in the light of 
the Duclos article; Jack Stachel held it was not. And the matter was 
intensely debated. Suddenly Stachel gave up his position — and even 
sanctioned a public attack which was made on General MacArthur 
that he was at first very loath to consent to. In speaking to Stachel 
about the matter privately I asked him why he had given in. He 
told me that there was "such a thing as yielding to Browderism, as 
he miglit have been doing, and that Berger had thought Allen's views 
should be permitted." 

That meant that "the hopelessly capitalistic country" could only be 
dealt with as "the hopelessly Fascist country, Nazi Germany," had 
been treated.. 

Mr. Kankin. When was that attack on General MacArthur? 

Mr. BtJDEXz. Ilie attack on General MacArthur came from the 
Philippine underground of the Communist Paity. It was printed — 
I am trying to approximate exactly when it was— in the fall of 1915; 
it was around the discussion of the Duclos article, the discussion 
which appeared in September, August, or September of 1945. The 
attack can be found in tlie files of the Daily Worker. 

Mr. Adamson. Mr. Chairman, could the committee recess for about 
10 minutes in order for the witness to rest his voice? 

Mr. Wood. Yes. 

Mr. Rankin. I want to get a copy of the attack on General Mac- 

Mr. BuDENz. That is in the files of the Daily Worker: there was a 
series of articles, but it constituted a very violent attack on Mac- 


( Wlu'ieiipon a slioit recess wns taken.) 

The C'liAiKMAX. Let the eoiuniittee he in order, please. 

Mr. AuAMsox. Ml. Chairman, at the cojiclusion of his statement this 
afternoon. 1 will j>et up and ask on the record tliat yon adjourn the 
hearinir to a future date to he set. 

The CiiAiHMAx. All ri<iht. Let us proceed. 

Mr. Bui^Exz. There are two observations I would now like to rnake. 
One is that necessarily, even in this extended testimony and covering a 
period of vears. and also when thinirs are by notes or oral communica- 
tions, necessarily I will forget a number of things. I therefore will 
file with the committee later written supi)lements to this testimony, in 
addition to references to documents and the dates. 

]SIr. Kaxkix. Can you do it right away? 

Mr. liuDEXZ. A\'elK it nuiy take a little while. I feel the necessity of 
consulting the files of the Daily Worker which, to my mind, do suggest 
events, and I have not had the opportunity to do so. Then besides, here 
today, there is so much of the material at my disposal that I am going 
to omit some of it by accident. 

I want to point, however, to two things in my experience. One is 
this: I have mentioned Clarence Hathaway and his relationship to 
Edwards, but I have not mentioned other things about Hathaway. 
These matters throw further light on the illegal Communist activities. 

ISIr. Hathaway advised me very definitely, early in my career in the 
partv, that Earl Browder was practically a megaphone for someone 
else. It was in 11)89 in the back part of the room in a national com- 
mittee meeting. Mr. Hathaway told me "Don't get it in your head 
that Jack Stachel and Earl Browder originate these ideas they bring 
forward. They represent things which are presented to them by other 
people." That was pretty strong evidence early in my party experience 
of direction from abroad, which I found out later was carried to one 
or two leading comrades. Continuing on the matter before us, I want 
to i)oint out, when I spoke about illegal activities, I did not just mean 
this business of false passports or of one or two instances even of that. 

For instance, there was Harry Cannes, late foreign editor of the 
Daily Worker. He was about to be convicted of false passports when 
he died of a brain tinnor. His deatli was hastened by fear and worry. 
I worked in the same office with him at the time and know that most of 
his trouble was not fear of America, nor fear of an American prison, 
but fear of people back of him in the Communist conspiratorial appa- 
ratus. He feared he wotdd have to divulge some of the sliadowy figures 
with whom he worked for the Krendin. As a mattei- of fact, there is 
one thing I noticed constantly in regard to Communist leadership and 
that was fear. I have seen Earl Browder look like he was struck with 
a most intense fright on more than one occasion, and Jack Stachel looks 
as though somebody was chasing him all the time. This fear is not of 
America, it is not even a sense of fear of imprisonment in America, it 
is this pecular shadow back of those people that puts fright into their 
hearts, or whatCAcr it is. Maybe it is a feeling of their obligation to 
the Soviet dictators. I am not going to analyze it, but it does represent 
.1 sense of fear. 

Ml-. Mux'DT. I wish you would have a little description of Jack 
Stachel put in the record at this point. I do not know anything 
about hitn. 


Mr. Adamson. Mr. Stachel appeared before the committee last year, 
Mr. Mundt. 

Mr. Mundt. I was not at that meeting. 

Mr. Adamson. And we have his testimony. 

Mr. BuDENZ. Mr. Stachel — I really do not care much to go into 
detail on that. My relations with him have been personally very 
excellent. He has some fine qualities, including a very quick mind, 
and I generally call him the Communist Vicar of Bray ; that is to say, 
he always lands on his feet no matter what the party line is. And 
back of this is a certain efficiency personally and a certain ability to 
get things done. However, I do know that he has a shadow, likewise, 
in back of him in the conspiratorial apparatus of other persons who 
command him. I have seen instances of this which I will have to give 
to the committee, however, at the moment in executive sessions, but 
later on they may be divulged publicly, if the committee decides that 
is advisable. 

Secondly, as I have said, when I spoke about certain illegal activi- 
ties I did not mean those mentioned are all of the picture by far. But 
I have referred here to those things which are on American court or 
other formal records, such as the conviction of Browder, Gitlow's pass- 
port, the conviction of William Weiner. Charles Krumhein, and other 
things of that character involving perjury or false passports. How- 
ever, in back of this is the entire illegal apparatus, consistin,g, in some 
instances, of the assassination of those who disagree. This came to my 
attention early, when I first took up work with the Daily Worker. 
One of these instances was of the former American school teacher, 
Julia Stuart Poyntz, who disappeared from the streets of New York 
into thin air. She had been at one time very active in the Commu- 
nist Party, had then worked with the secret apparatus, but was turn- 
ing sour. When she disappeared the party was assailed for this act, 
and I said in an editorial-board meeting that a public defense should 
be made. But Hathaway drew me out of the office, I remember, that 
day and said : "This is hot cargo. It might injure some of our com- 
rades, and we cannot discuss it." And it was never discussed by the 
Communist press. 

Then there was the case of Ignatz Maria Reiss, a noted Communist 
who was kidnaped and killed. The New Republic one day. to the 
great pain of the Communists, began to raise the question of the 
Reiss case very mildly. They said something was wrong there. I do 
not remember the exact date, but I do remember my participaticm in 
the discussion in the Daily Worker, and I was very much disturbed 
about this accusation. I felt we should make answers to these attacks 
even though it was not prominently played up in the editorial in the 
New Republic. I mean to say it was not a major editorial. Again 
Hathaway — I am sure it was he, because I recollect he was the only 
one who discussed those matters with me, and he said once again that 
this was something we were not permitted to discuss; that it was too 
hot to handle for us. 

Afi'. Raxktx. Was that somebody wlio disappeared? 

Mr. BiDEXz. He disappeared in Europe; he was a well-known Com- 
numist and, if I remember correctly, got into a dispute with the secret 
apparatus, suddenly went "sour," as the expression is, and I think even 
made a public gesture of his sourness. He was found killed in Europe. 
He was kidnaped and killed. 


Ml'. Raxkix. Wliat liappened to the otlu'r party you mentioned be- 
foi'c that ? 

Mr. HiDKXZ. 1 il(»n"t knt)w ; she just went off and disappeared. 

Mr. Raxkix. Has she been found yet? 

Ml-. BroKxz. No ; she disappeared. She evaporated from the streets 
of New York ; that was the fate of an American citizen. 

Of course, disappearances of tliis kind are not unusual in Soviet 
circles. There is the strange case of Yezliov, of which something 
should be mentioned. I hope you won't think I am trying to in- 
dulge in humor in relating what follows, because it is most serious. 
Bnt this was an ilhistration to me of how tilings hai)])en in the Soviet 
Union. When I was editor of the Midwest Daily Record, Commu- 
nist-created paper. I did not have time to look into every nice political 
question on Soviet events. So I asked William L. Patterson, who had 
been in the English section of the Connnunist International in ]\Ios- 
cow to watch those things for us. One day I wished to run a picture 
of Russian generals, and took out a picture of a number of such gen- 
erals from the newspaper morgue. I asked Patterson if the picture 
could be used ; was it O. K. ? "Oh, that can't be used," he replied, " Yez- 
hov is in that picture. He is now an enemy of the Soviet Union." 
Now, I knew we did not hear of Yezhov any more but I did not know 
he had been declared an enemy of the Soviet Union. But I said, 
"Fortunateh", Yezhov is on the end of the picture and we can cut 
him off," and I took him off and ran the picture of the other generals. 
Yet, what were the facts about Yezhov? He was the head of the 
secret police of the Soviet who had conducted the big death purges 
and he was a great hero. In fact, they called the secret police 
after him. But he had disagi^eed with the Kremlin dictatorsliip, 
and one day he walked up to Leningrad and has never been heard 
of since. And while Yezhov, w'ho was one of the heroes of the 
Soviet Union, disappears in that strange and mysterious fashion, 
it is known here he is an enemy of the Soviet Union and they can- 
not mention his name any more in the Daily Worker, the Midwest 
Daily Record, or anywliere else in tlie Communist press. And over 
the years, we were snddeidy confronted with Soviet heroes that we 
found did not appear any more anywhere, and we had to be silent 
about it. and there was no explanation at all as to what happened to 
them. Bnt it was known here, throngh the secret channels of interna- 
tional communication, that these men were "'enemies of the Soviet 

Tlien there was also the name of Yenikidze, wdio was a great friend 
of Stalin, who engineered, if I remember coi-rectly, the first "Jo" 
election in the Soviet Union, where 95 percent was for the election of 
Stalin. He was jailed and killed there without trial, bnt we knew 
he was an enemy of the Soviet Union, in Communist circles here. 
And so over and over I can repeat instance after instance of these 
people who were heroes and became enemies of the Soviet Union, 
killed or disappeared. 

Mr. Thomas. How about a former general of the Soviet Union 
whose body was found up here in a Washington hotel — Krivitsky? 
Mr. BuDExz. I know nothing about that. I onlv speak, you knoAV, 
Mr. Congressman, of what I know. Of course, if 1 do not know, that 
does not mean that everything is O. K. about Krivitskv, either, al- 
though I would not want to state what I am not certain of. The reason 


for that lack of knowledge is tliat plenty of things happen withni 
Communist secret rings that a leading Communist may not know 
about. As I say, the right hand in a conspiracy never lets the left 
hand know what it does. 

Now, I want to call the attention of this committee to the fact that 
I have copies of tlie Communist here in my possession which show 
the leading position of Gerhard Eisler as Hans Berger. These ar- 
ticles prove his high rank, for they are on vital subjects in the theo- 
retical organ of the Communist Party. These articles range from 
a signed article by him in November 1942 on Twenty-Five Years of 
Soviet Power — published along with articles by Earl Browder, gen- 
eral secretary of the party, and V. J. Jerome, editor of the Commu- 
nist — over to a number of very important contributions cm "foreign 
policy." They are written by a man of authority, it's clear. Among 
them, significantly, is an article on the dissolution of the Communist 
International, to which I shall later refer because of its deep impor- 
tance, and one rebutting Foster's original rebellion against Browder. 
The latter was published in April 19J:4, in the guise of an answer 
to Max Lerner of PM. 

They show Hans Berger to be a well-known Communist, entrusted 
with the most outstanding problems. In addition to those he also 
wrote in the Daily Worker, but mainly there on the German problem, 
for the reason that the Daily Worker is more of a mass paper and 
it was not wise to show Berger too openly or f idly as such in its pages. 

Now, there have been some statements by Mr. Berger-Eisler in 
the press, trying to get out of the position in whicli these articles 
place him. And I have to take some notice of some of these state- 
ments right in the beginning. In the first i:)lace, Eisler met my first 
declaration about his place as Communist International representa- 
tive, or its equivalent, by saying that lie didn't know who "'this mys- 
terious Hans Berger is." Later on he admitted it was himself, but 
that he had written these articles through a ghost writer, who turned 
out to be Joseph Starobin, the foreign editor of the Daily Worker. 
Now, that was merely a red hearing across the trail, for Staro])in's 
job is to rewrite (or have someone else rewrite) all copy that comes 
into the Daily Worker on foreign atfairs. 

In the Communist, Berger-Eisler has written as "the equivalent to 
a representative of the Communist International." which Dennis said 
he was. The Communist is the theoretical organ of the Communist 
Party, as I have stated and want to emphasize. It is for the "inner 
circle." When I say "inner circle" I do not mean to imply that you 
cannot buy it through regular channels, because you can subsci-ibe 
and buy it. The purpose is to educate the more active Communists. 
And, by the way, it was also contended by Mr. Eisler that he was a 
refugee over here, merely in transit. Is it not amazing that a refugee 
in transit in America can suddenly ap])ear witli Earl Browder as 
writing an article entitled "Twenty-Five Years of Soviet Power." No 
othei" refugee is picked up off the streets and treated so splendily 
in the Communist j^ress. 

Mr. Adamsox. Explain what you mean liy "in ti-ansit." You mean 
he is here on an in-transit visa i 

Mr. BuDENZ. He claimed — I do not know technically; I have not 
closely followed his defense, but the ])oint of the matter is he admits 
he has committed "technical perjury" in coming to this country say- 


ing he was in transit — in transit to Mexico. His pei-jury was tliat 
he swore lie was not a Connnunist; now lie admits he was. 

Mr. Adamson. Then he had received a visa to come to the United 

Mr. BuDKNz : That I do not know. 

The CiiAiinrAX. Who is that you arc talkin<r about? 

Mr. BuDEXz. Huns Iiei<>er. 

Mr, Adamson. He did not come here on a visa ? 

Mr. Bx'nKNz. I do not know; he just makes the claim he came here 
on an in-transit visa on his Avay to Mexico. He claimed he was 
on his way to Mexico, but he could not get into Mexico, he says, be- 
cause Austrians and Germans were not admitted. I think anyone 
who would perjure himself on his political status to get into America 
would perjure himself as to his nationality if he wanted to get into 
Mexico. The general inference is the United States was where he 
wanted to land. 

The point of the matter is I want to call your attention to the fact, 
nevertheless, and I submit it to the committee, that in November 1942. 
in The Communist. Hans Berger joined with Earl Browcler and V. J. 
Jerome in an article entitled "Twenty-Five Years of Soviet Power," 
and in that he handles it as though he were an American. He speaks 
about ''our Xation discovers the Soviet Union." And what is "our 
Nation"? The United States Government. Of course, we must un- 
derstand he would partly justify this as a Communist way of doing 
things, because of the fact this is supposed to be instructions to Amer- 
ican C^ommunists ; therefore he associates himself with them. He acts 
like an American, declares his readers. He speaks of "our Nation 
discoA'ers the Soviet Union." and even endorses certain American 
leaders, some of ^^hom are not now in the grood graces of the Com- 
munist Party; that is the reason I will not cite them here, thinking it 
is unjust to quote them. At any rate, he states "that the Soviet Union 
was a land constituting the bulwark of civilization and progress" 
and likewise he emphasizes the value of the Soviet Union at that par- 
ticular time. I am not entering into his argument here, although 
that could be done ; I am merely bringing to your attention emphat- 
ically the fact it is queer for a refugee to appear in America in transit 
to Mexico and suddenly write, along with Earl Browder, in The Com- 
munist, which is the ideological organ or theoretical organ of the 
Communist Party. It is impossible. Berger is no refugee. 

]Mr. Adamsox. Will you submit these documents into the record, Mr. 
Budenz ? 

Mr. BuDEXz. Yes. I will submit all issues of the Communist in 
which Hans Berger wrote, to my knowledge. I wish to call your at- 
tention, in order not to take up the whole time of the committee with 
this to a few more. only, of these articles. One of them is for May 
1944. and tliat shows Berger's standing beyond doubt. We will bear 
in mind that William Z. Foster had jumped the traces of the line and 
had been reprimanded and his report suppressed, and Foster was 
compelled to keep silence under fear of being expelled. And taking 
advantage of an article by Max Lerner, Hans Berger writes an article 
in the Communist of May 1944, criticizing Foster's views but under 
the guise of criticizing Lerner. And in that way — of criticizing Max 
Lerner's charge of betrayal against Browder — he can criticize Foster. 
Foster, as I say, was ahead of the procession in the great guessing game 


as to what Moscow would do. Now, in this article Berger takes up 
in detail the Tehran agreement and its promises, exactly what the 
Communists stand for, and says "Browder realizes that in its dom- 
inant sections American monopoly capital supports the war." In 
other words, I am quoting this and some other things, and I refer to 
that and some other things to show this was a statement of what the 
Communists should believe, as well as what they did believe. This 
was certainly not written by a Communist on his way to Mexico, 
stopping off here; it was a responsible and dominant person writing 
the article. In proof of that, I can say that Berger's is one of the 
very few pseudonyms to appear in the American Communist Party's 
theoretical organ. There are a few there, but none so conspicuous as 

Mr. Rankin. Where was he from ? 

Mr, BuDENz. He was in America then — and now. 

Mr. Rankin. Where did he come from? 

Mr. BuDENz. Hans Berger? 

Mr. Rankin. Yes, 

Mr. BuDENZ. Offhand I could not tell you. Lonly know what I have 
been told. In this respect his description again agrees with the de- 
scription of Edwards; that is, he is from Germany or Austria, and 
was a well-known comrade there before his activities in China, Spain, 
and here. And what Eugene Dennis said to me in 1942 indicated 
deiiuitely he had been liere before. 

Mr. Thomas. When did he first come to the United States, as far 
as you know? 

Mr. BuDENz. The first time, of course, was the case of Edwards 
which, I am still convinced, was Eisler. 

Mr. Thomas. What was the approximate date? 

Mr. BuDENz. That would not place his coming; that was my going 
into the party. He was there, in national headquarters then. That 
was in June 1935, or early in 1936. 

Mr. Thomas. Then you know him as Hans Berger when for the first 
time ? 

Mr. BuDENz. As Hans Berger, I knew him somewhat earlier than the 
Dennis statement of 1942, but I will say there are all sorts and ways of 
getting information in the Commu]iist movement, especially of one 
is editor of the official orgain. 

Mr. Thomas. Approximately? 

Mr. BuDENZ. I do not remember now who told me. because so much 
information cauie to me. But it was early in 1942. Tliat is, I had 
some knowledge of Berger before the date of this Dennis interview. At 
any rate, it also was in 1942. Dennis confirmed officially what I al- 
ready knew. 

Mr. Thomas. Was not Berger an active Communist in Germany 
at one time ? 

Mr. BuDENz, That is what Dennis said — he is a veteran comrade, 
"tried and trusted in Germany, Austria, Spain, China, and here, as 
you know." 

Mr, Thomas. Was not he an active Communist in Germany at the 
time of the Reichstag fire? 

Mr. BuDENz. That I do not know from my own knowledge, even 
from anyone's representations to me. 


Now. T \v:int to <2:o( here to tlu' tlissoliition of the Coiuinunist Intcr- 
iiivtional niul tho article on it by Ber^cr-Eisler in the Conmninist. 
This is the issue, by the way, the discussion of which I happened to be 
in on in part, and T know how this issue was framed. It is very in- 
terestin<r. Mr. Ber^rer's name does not appear on the cover, but wliose 
name does appear is Dmitri Z. Manuilsky. I was present partly by 
accident, because I was there on other matters when V. J. Jerome, who 
is the editor of the Connnunist in reality, and Eutrene Dennis discussed 
this matter of the Connnunist International. We discussed it in the 
theoretical and ideological lany:uage which the Conmumist used, and 
to Avhich I wish to refer a bit later, and thereby the Comnnuiists con- 
ceal fi-om you the real nature of their directives, although these are 
clear to their o^vn trained Comnuniists. 

This issue we were discussing was the one that discussed the Com- 
nuniist International, and the question was how it should be discussed. 
And it was agreed that Mr. Berger should write this piece which he 
did write, in order to show to our comrades that internationalism still 
lives — "internationalism still lives' was the phrase used — even with 
the dissolution of the Communist International. And in order to 
drive that home, i was decided o put in a prominent article by Dmitri 
Z. Manuilsky on "The Glorious Victories of the Red Army" because 
every trained Communist knows that Dmitri Manuilsky represents 
leadership of the Communist International even to this day. That 
was the understanding which prompted his open threat to the United 
Nations recently of the power of the Communist parties throughout 
the world. That is the speech that is putting every party on its toes 
and was the signal from the Communist International. Manuilsky 
should know all about these matters for every trained Communist 
know-, he roughly runs every Comnuniist Party through the continued 
international channels of communication. Even when George Dimi- 
trov was leader, Foster told me — and he was guilty of a pun about 
it — that Dimitrov may be the head but Dmitri is the heart of the 
Connnunist International. That is a fact; Manuilsky represents what 
now is the equivalent of the Communit International, and let us 
undeistand this. 

Mr. Raxkix. Is he in this country now ? 

Mr. BuDEXz. I guess he is a guest of the United States, and so is 
Ml-. Molotov, incidentallv. 

Mr. Raxkix. Who is that I 

Mr. BuDEX'z. Molotov is also a guest — the Foreign JSlinister of the 
U. S. S. R., the gentleman who stands for a world proletarian dicta- 
torship, for world domination. 

And so it was agreed, and this is the point — it was agreed that 
Manuilsky's article shovdd be put in The Communist and Berger 
should inake his explanation in order that all well-advised Com- 
munists would know that "internationalism still lives," even with 
the dissolution of the Communist International. But that was the 
ex])lanation which was revealed everywhere very vigorously, that 
"internationalism still lives even after the dissolution of the Com- 
munist International." 

I will only mention one thing, that while the apparatus of the Com- 
nuniist International is changed somewhat and it might not appear 
so vividly and would not be admitted as existent, its functions go 

94456—46 4 


on, its communications and personnel substantially remain in oper- 

Mr. Rankin. In other words, the Comintern has not been abolished? 

Mr. BuDENz. It has not been abolished in fact. I have other evi- 
dence of that, if I can recall it, and I may in just a moment: but 
eveiywhere responsible Communists, as they are designated, retail 
this idea in just these words, sometimes with a smile even, that "the 
Communist International has been dissolved, but internationalism is 
not dead, and our association with the great fatherland of workers, 
the Soviet Union, is not dead." It exists just the same and "we are 
loyal to all of it." This use of the "fatherland of workers," in- 
cidentally, is a quotation from William Z. Foster made down here a 
number of j^ears ago, when in a congressional committee hearing he 
proclaimed the Soviet Union as his fatherland and the Soviet flag 
as his flag. 

Mr. Thomas. That was late in 1939, when he and Browder came 
before the old Dies committee, and in answer to a question put to tliem 
bj" the chairman of that committee they said if a war came between 
the United States and Russia, their loyalty would be to Russia. And 
is not that true today, just as much as it was true then ? 

Mr. BuDExz. It is true today, and it is proved bj^ just reading the 
Communist publications. The measure of every American leader, 
according to their idea, is the degree with which he either represents 
or the degree with which he agrees with the current Soviet policy, 
and an American leader becomes either damned or praised and trusted 
according to his association with Soviet policies at any particular 
time, I gave you Mr. Roosevelt as exhibit A. 

Mr. Thomas. So, if there should be a war today or at some time in 
the future between the United States and Russia, those leaders and 
all of the other Communists would have their loyalty with Russia. 
Is not that true ? 

Mr. BuDExz. Most decidedly. That is their only loyalty and, as 
I say. the proof of it is — I do not want to make any charges that are 
based on oral testimony but the proof of it is the Communist publica- 
tions themselves — their own change of line in accordance with the 
wish of Russia; their praise of the Soviet leadership, even after the 
dissolution of the Communist International, their judgment of leaders 
in America on the basis of their friendship or subservience to Soviet 
government desires. I cannot take up all of the time by confirming 
this, but that can be found by examination of every Communist reso- 
lution, every Communist public meeting, and every Communist 

Mr. Thomas. So that every Communist in this country is a Russian 
fifth columnist? 

Mr. BuDEXz. He is a member of the Russian fifth column, which 
is as much so as the Nazi Bund was to Germany, except operating 
more subtly and more effectively. I want to say this, however, that of 
coui'se a number of the rank and file Conununists are not fully cog- 
nizant of this ; also I have presented quotes from certain Communist 
leaclere showing they exercise a certain casuistry in back of their 
writings, to conceal this Quisling rule. If time permitted, I could 
bring overwhelming evidence before this conunittee, quoting issue 
after issue of the Daily Worker, and of this publication [indicating 


the Coinimiiiist ]. of tlu'ii' loyalty to Kussia and Ihoir criticism of 
AnuM'icaii h'ailcrs aiul ^\llat they believe about Ainericaii policy based 
on servility to Soviet aims alone. 

Let me give yon one striking example of this. Have you ever seen 
a Communist ))ubIicatiou that even found one fault in Joseph Stalin? 
He cannot make any mistakes. Yet the American leaders ari' shuttled 
l)ack ami forth in the Communist press, brow-beaten, even called 
abusive terms. The Comnuniists slander, lie, and are abusive to these 
Americans because these men expressed some criticism of Soviet ob- 
jectives. But can Stalin be attacked in that press? They cannot 
even find a small fault to speak of. or discuss any weakness of his in 
the course of his long career. He is without any defect, says the 
Conminnist press in effect. 

Mr. Raxkix. ]Mr. Budenz, here is a statement made to the com- 
mittee by the gentleman that the gentleman from New Jersey referred 
to. He said : 

No Comuiunist, no matter how many votes he should secure in a national elec- 
tion could, even if he would, become President of the present Government. 

That is the Government of the United States. He says : 

When a Communist heads the Government of the United States — and that day 
will come just as surely as the sun rises — that Government will not be a 
capitalistic government, but a soviet government and behind that government 
will stand the Red Army to enforce the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

Does not that express the policies of the Communist Party ? 

]Mr. BuDEXz. That expresses the present policy of the Soviet Union, 
veneered over with the appearance of working in the United Nations, 
but using the United Nations as a sounding board to discredit and 
belittle the United States and the American Nation. 

Mr. Raxkix. Does that express also the policies of the Communist 
Party in the United States as it now exists? 

Mr. BuDEXz. That expresses the policies of the Communist Party 
of the United States as they now exist and as is disclosed by these 
recent discussions which the ])arty does not make public largely for 
legal and tactical reasons. We must understand that the Communist 
Party withdrew from the Communist International for such tactical 
reasons, ahead of the Communist International dissolution. And that, 
I think incidentally, is the reason why Dennis told me at that time that 
Berger is the equivalent of a representative here of the Communist 
International. I do not know — there may have been other reasons — 
but that I think was his reason, because the party was not supposedly 
in the Communist International, but the International existed. 

Mr. Raxkix. And, by the way, Foster is still the head? 

Mr. BuDEXz. He is now the head of the party here. There is this 
thought that I was about to express in regard to Foster, however. 
As I have said, the Comintern and the Soviet Government keep two 
leaders alive in each country. Usually one is left and one is right, so 
that when it is necessary they can take one out and keep the other back. 
For instance, Litvinov symbolizes that policy. They go in and out 
like weather vanes. When the weather is clear, on American relations, 
Litvinov comes out and when the weather is bad, Litvinov goes back 
in. So it is with the Communist leadership here and elsewhere. 

Browder has been salvaged and made the representative of the 
Soviet book trusts here. There are three big: Soviet book trusts. 


And he can now function in perhaps a better position than he ever did 
before. For instance, he can write for the New York Times now as 
an ex-Comnuniist and he can also be put on the radio frequently. 
And he can be thus kept on ice for a return to the secretaryship of 
the party, in case it is necessary to smooth down the course of rela- 
tionships wnth the U. S. A. a little bit. 

Likewise, in England, Pollett — Harry Pollett was thrown out and 
R. Palme Dutt was put in. Then Dutt was thrown out and Pollett 
is back in again. Those are changes wliich are made right along. 

Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, it is now almost 12 o'clock and I 
suggest that we recess. 

Mr. BuDP^Nz. I just wanted to complete my thought on this matter, 
although it could be explored further, and that is in connection with 
these articles of Hans Berger in the Communist of which I have 
pointed to three vei-y important ones, very decisive ones; one on the 
twenty-fifth anniversary of the Soviet I'nion. where he is given his 
proper rank, by being associated with Browder; and secondly, in 
regai'd to the action taken with reference to Foster, and the statement 
that was made, whicli only a person with authority would make. 
That was in May 1944. As Foster had been a dissident, he had written 
a letter to the national committee. This letter had been suppressed. 
It was necessary to suppress Foster's ideas within the party for the 
time being, and Berger-Eisler brought his authority to bear. 

For instance, you do not take a Joseph Starobin, the foreign editor 
of the Daily Worker, and make him write an article of that kind, 
because Starobin has not got that authority. But you take Hans 
Berger, and he writes it out, and Starobin may turn it into better 
English for him. That is one thing that the foreign editor of the 
Daily Worker very frequently does, as has been said. I do not know 
that he did in connection with these articles, because V. J. Jerome 
is perfectly capable of editing articles very well. In fact, sometimes 
he gives one a pain with the way he edits articles, he is so precise. 
But he does edit articles and I know that Mr. Jerome has rewritten 
sections of articles at the request of certain people, although they did 
not write them themselves. I have hel])ed Jerome on such matters. 
I have in mind an article by John Williamson, wdiere he furnishes a 
great deal of information, but the article as it was published merely 
confirmed the conclusions of Williamson; that is, the^^ were not new 
conclusions. Much of the expression in the article was changed, how- 
ever. They were Williamson's conclusions, but he at that time was in 
Cleveland, and Jerome asked me to handle certain details and rewrit- 
ing on a large scale. 

So that, as to these articles, I do not know who smoothed them out, 
but Berger wrote them and I was present when the discussion of one 
article was in hand and Berger-Eisler was the person involved. 

Then there are the Daily Worker articles. These came to the 
Daily Worker, and they did not come through Starobin, who Berger 
makes his ghost writer. I'hey came to the Daily Worker largely 
tlirough Stachel. In fact, after Stachel became the representative of 
the political committee on the Daily Worker, communication with 
Berger seemed to increase ; at least, I was more conscious of it. The 
written connuunications from Berger fell down, but the knowledge 
tliat Stachel was in consultation with Berger increased. Every once 


in a wliile Stachel said that he was jroiiio; out and discuss this question 
with Berizoi' and lie bi'ou<iht out certain documents with him on those 
occasions ami also l)r()u<>ht the modest pay which Berger received 
from the Daily Worker for his articles. 

The point is this, that these articles in the Daily AVorker — just to 
brinir this point to a head — were sent in in Germanized English. Nat- 
urally I am not relied ing on (lermanized English because of my own 
oi-igins, but the point is that they were in Germanized English and 
they had to be straightened out and Starobin had the job of seeing 
that they were straightened out and even I, when Starobin was ill, 
once luul three of these articles. Of course, this was the type of work 
on the Daily AVorker. which the Daily AA^orker staff — even I — regarded 
as a headache, this business of rewriting articles wdiich had accents 
to them, for the simple reason that it is most diilicult to make it precise 
and be sure that you have the same thought. So that I was greatly 
i-elieved when we learned that the articles were to be sent back, because 
the line had changed someAvhat between the time that they were writ- 
ten, and the time that they Avere to be published. I recall that very 
Avell because at that time Starobin was either too busy or was ill. 

Mr. Thomas. Professor, do you make the point that Hans Berger 
is the No. 1 Connnunist in the United States, that Browder and Foster 
are just figureheads in the Communist Party here? 

Mr. BuDENz. I make these two statements because I want to divide 
tins. One, Hans Berger or Gerhardt Eisler, the brother of Ruth 
Fischer — because he Avas so designated to me and so I knew' him, 
understanding that Ruth Fischer and he has different ideas — this 
Hans Berger or Eisler is the equivalent to the representative of the 
Communist International. I was so officially informed — that he is. 
the chief comnnniication officer and that he is likewise vested with a 
certain authority such as was exercised when Edwards took Hathaway 
over the coals. 

Of course, you nnist understand that with this authority there are 
limitations and conditions in matters of this character. But never- 
theless the official i-epresentative of the Comnuniist International is 
the chief communication officer who brings the line of the party over, 
who knows it, and who, in addition to that, is vested Avith a certain 
authority to interA^ene in party affairs if he judges that necessary. 
Of course, I do not knoAv just Avhat are all the limitations, but he 
intervened in some matters in the case of the Daily AVorker, or in the 
case of HathaAvay. Naturally when the representative was under 
ground he could not interfere in person because ])hysically he was 
not around the Daily AA^orker building. Dennis had advised me that 
lie could not come to the building, and never did come, to my knoAvledge. 

Mr. Thomas. Can he dictate to BroAvder and Foster? 

Mr. BuDEXz. That is the second point. BroAvder and Foster have 
no life except that Avhich is granted them by Moscoav — no political 
life of their oAvn. I Avant to illustrate this by what happens in the 
Communist Party, to show you how this Avorks out. For instance. 
BroAvder used to go back and forth to Moscoav, and every time he came 
back, there Avas a neAv line. A classical case that I remembei- — I Avas. 
not in the party then. I Avas just <m the eve of getting it — but there 
was a conference on unemjiloyment insurance in Washington in 
January 1935, and they were denouncing the idea of a Labor Party. 


The Comniiinists were fighting tootli ami nail against it when, lo and 
behold, Browder arrives on a ship f I'ojn Moscow, rushes to Washing- 
ton and declares that anyone who is against the Labor Party is 
anathema ; that anyone who is opposed to the Labor Party is opposed 
to the interests of the workers and the labor movement. And the 
Communists flip-flopped over and became just as enthusiastic in 
2 minutes for the Labor Party as they had been bitterly opposed to it 
all along before. 

Now, we are sensible people. We know that Browder did not go 
to Moscow for the fun of it. He went to get the line on the Labor 
Party and he came back with it. That happened over and over 
again. The connection of these people to the Communists Inter- 
national Organization proves it. Foster sat on the executive com- 
mittee for years with Stalin — the executive committee of the Com- 
munist International. They were conmiitted to the same thing. 
They were committed to the dictatorship and anyone who did not 
agree with the Stalin policy received the fate of Gitlow and others. 
Gitlow, you are aware, was deposed from American leadership of 
the party by Stalin personally — and that took place in Moscow. But 
Foster and Browder did not receive that fate. They were good 

If you will read some of the comnmnications, and notice the way 
William Z. Foster begged for leadership in the United States, in the 
official records, as printed in the International Press Correspondence, 
you will understand who is the boss of the American Communist 
Party. In Moscow, at the time when the lid was off, and there was 
less discretion used, and the party had not formed itself so firmly in 
discipline, Foster was there making his plea for leadership, pleading 
with the leaders over there to try to get their O. K. for him to be the 
leader over here. And there are many stories around the Communist 
movement of the lobbying that was done by this American Communist 
and that with Bucharin and Stalin and other leaders to get their O. K. 
to be the leader over here. 

Mr. Thomas. That does not answer my question specifically. 

Mr. BuDEXz. Wliat was your question? 

Mr. Thomas. My question was, Can Hans Berger dictate to Foster 
and Browder'^ 

Mr. BuDENz. Of course he can. As a matter of fact, I will tell the 
committee in executive session how even another underground gentle- 
man can dictate to Browder, and how it was done. 

The Chairman. The committee will recess until 1 : 30. 

(Whereupon a recess was taken until 1: 30 p. m.) 


The recess having expired, the conunittee reconvened at 1 : 30 p. m., 
Hon. John S. Wood (chairman) presiding. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. Professor Budenz, 
the members of the committee doubtless will have a considerable num- 
ber of questions to ask you, but we will postpone that until you have 
finished your statement. So you may feel perfectly free to proceed 
at this time. 



Mr. Binicxz. In tho first place, there are several odds and ends that 
I omitted that I wonld like to introdnce here into the hearing. One 
of them is this: 1 mentioned, in the first place, the fact that the 
Communist Party has never disagreed "vvith the Stalinite line at any 
time, nor witli Stalinite-endorsed individuals. 

But I Avould like to i)oint out something oven shari)er than that. 
That is that for many years, including the first part of my being in the 
Daily Worker, the Daily Worker was subsidized directly by the So- 
viet Government. That is well known, but the method is not generally 

That is to say, the Runag News Agency of Moscow sent to the Daily 
Worker every day thousands of words free of charge. We know how 
high the cable charge is from Moscow for each word of news. This 
was paid for b}' the Kunag Agency; namely, the Soviet Government. 

During the Trotzkyite-Bucharinist trials literally hundreds of 
thousands of words came in, translated mto English for the conven- 
ience of the Daily Worker, and all of that work was paid for — the 
cables sent over directly from Moscow — by Moscow. This was not 
stopped by the Soviet Government. It was stopped by the Depart- 
ment of Justice declaring that the paper would have to file as a for- 
eign agent if it continued to receive this infornfation free of charge. 
Of course, that would be very bad for the Communists to file as for- 
eign agents. It would disclose the purpose of the organization. So 
that had to be discontinued. 

Then tlie Intercontinent News was formed by the Communists and 
received these wires for a while and relayed them to the Daily Worker 
and, of course, to some other people. That finally had to be stopped 
because likewise the Intercontinent News was supposed to be required 
to file as a foreign agent. I wanted to supplement that information 
on Soviet subsidies to what has been said before on this point. 

Secondly, I want to point out how well information comes to the 
Communist Party from abroad and how well events are being fore- 
shadowed, at least in regard to certain tilings Moscow wants the Com- 
munists here to know. I will give as an example that I had of a 
cable from the British Daily Worker at the time that Dr. Ivan Sub- 
asitch, the Literal, was supposed to go to Yugoslavia to become a 
part of the Tito government. We received a cable from the London 
Daily Worker asking what the status of Subasitch was. At that time 
Duram Landy was in charge of this type of work, dealing with all 
matters of that character. Landy at that time said that this was a 
vei-y indiscrete cable from London and, beyond that, he stated that 
this cable had to be answered in a very careful way. 

The point of the matter is that the cable was answered, but by a 
letter which was more to the point than the cable we sent, wliich was 
rather noncommittal, giving the opinion on Subasitch, "according to 
certain Slav organizations.*' At that time Subasitch was going to 
be brought into the political machinery of Yugoslavia, in order to 
double-cross him. That is to say, Subasitch, in the short run woidd 
be all right, but in the long run was not to be relied upon. And that 
was what the London Daily AVorker was told in advance. 


Now, I had intelligence enough at least to reason this out, that 
Subasitch was going to remain there in Yugoslavia for certain pur- 
poses and would be all right, and then later was slated for decapita- 
tion, which was what took place. 

Mr, R.AXKIX. Do you mean he was physically executed? 

Mr, BuDENZ. No, I do not; I mean politically executed. 

This brings up another point in which Berger-Eisler plays some 
part. In fact, it is with very great reluctance that I raise this issue — 
and I do not even know how to do it — because it involves my own 
corruption of a friend; that is, political corruption, a thing which 
I have regretted very much ever since. That is, that I, as I acted 
then a Communist — because I certainly do not want to pretend that 
I, as a Communist, did not participate in Communist activities. But 
this was the case of Louis Adamic, who is not a Comnuniist, but who 
is certainly following the Communist line. 

Now, in his case, we had been very close friends, and if you will 
read his books, you will see that he commends me for my public 
activity, especially in the labor movement. So this is not in any 
sense an attack upon Mr. Adamic. What he is doing is well known. 
It is in the public eye and therefore I cannot throw any more light 
on it. 

What I am trjnng^o point out is how Communists try to corrupt 
people of this character; I mean, politically. 

Louis Adamic had been a member of the William Allen White 
committee and was certainly at one time anti-Conununist. ^^'hen 
I met him again, he was still anti-Tito, to a great degree and it was 
my assignment to see that Adamic was changed over. 

Mr. Rankix. How long has that been? 

Mr. BuDExz. I will liave to check that. 

Mr. Raxkix. About how long; just approximately — a year. 2 
years, or 5 years? 

^Ir. BuDEXZ. No, not 5 years. This was within the last ?> years. 

Mr. Raxkix. Within the last 3 years? 

Mr. BuDEXz. Well, it can easily be placed by the Saturday Evening 
Post article, in wliich he was still not ])ro-Tito. 

Mr. R\XKTX. You say tliat he is not a Communist, but follows the 
Communist line? 

^Tr. BuDEXz. That is right, 

Mr. Raxkix. That is like the difl'ereiice between a man being drunk 
and being intoxicated. 

Mr. BuDEXz. Well, of course, there are several reasons for this. 
Certain people aie not wanted in the pjn'ty, to start with, for one. 
Secondly, as a matter of fact, Adamic was not told, regarding his ac- 
tivities, that he must join the Communist l^arty; he was told not to 
join tlie ('onnnunist Parly. He was looked on as sort of unrelial)le by 
the Comnnmists and would swav back and forth, and it was thought 
that he could be more influenced by not oivjnnr him a i)arty member- 
ship. However, he did not ask, personally, to be a member. T want to 
make that clear. 

Mr. Raxkix. But he is following the Connnunist line and carrying 
on Connnunist ))roi:)ngan(la. 

Ml". BiDEXZ. In regard to Yugoslavia, yes. And also he is showing 
that in regard to his attack uj)on the Irish and the Catholics in his 


latest book. Xatioii of Nalions. wliicli is (lie Coinnuuiist line today in 
reiiiird to that subject. I wisli (o ilevelnp that in just a moment. 

Mr. Thomas. Yes, but did he not, before '\ years aiio, write some 
thin<rs that were just as eonnnunistic as anythin<^ he has written in 
the last 3 yeai-s? 

Mr. Bi'DKXz. I do not want to <i() into that, because that has nothinij 
to do with my present exi)erience, if you please, Congressman. The 
point of the matter is that 

Mr. Thomas. lint you say he was not a Communist ? 

Mr. IUdkxz. Xo; he was not. 

Mr. Kankix. You mean he was not a member of the party. 

Mr. BuDExz. Not only that, he was even hostile to the party, to a 
certain dejjree. 

Mr. TiiOiCAS. Mr. Chaiinian. I think it would be a <iood idea right 
at this })oint in the record to insert some of Louis Adaniic's writings. 
There are some poems that we have in our files that certainly show 
that he was very connnunistic and that he certainly follows the Com- 
munist line. 

Ml'. BuDEX^z. I cannot go into that without full information, I 
had knowni' him from earlier days in the labor movement, but at the 
time that I met him again he was not pro-Tito and not pro-Soviet 
policy in Europe. He became that way after re})eated visits from me 
and repeated visits with me from Landy, which brings me to this 
other matter about Berger-Eisler. 

Mr. Rankix'. And, ]Nfr. Budenz, you say, though, that he follows 
the Communist line, and from your statement there that he is anti- 

Mr, BuDExz. I did not say that he was antireligious. I said that 
he is now following the line iu regard to the present tactics of the 
Communists in regard to the Catholics, which I will outline in just a 

Mr. Raxkin. Do you want to put those in the record at this point, 
Mr. Thomas ? 

Mr, Thomas. I think it would be a good idea to j)ut them in the 

Mr. Raxkix. AVithout objection, you may insert them, Mr. Thomas, 
at this point. 

Mr. BuDEXz. I raise this particular issue, not merely to single him 
out, because I would do that with very great reluctance. The im- 
portant point is that all my actions before I went to see Adamic were 
carried forward after conferences witli either Browder or Jacob Oolos, 
of AVorld Tourists, who is now dead, and they had conferences in some 
instances with Berger-Eisler on this question. In other words, what 
I wish to bring in the picture are Eisler's activities in a broad sense 
from what I know of them. 

As a matter of fact, on one occasion as to a certain part of Adamic's 
book on Y'ugoslavia that I showed to Browder prior to publication, 
he had to take that away and show it to Mi: Eisler together coopera- 
tively before he gave liis opinion on it. 

I mentioned also the question of the Catholic Church, and I i-aise 
that because today it is a question that is of concern to every American, 
and its part of the tactics of Communists as I learned them. T was 



()ne of those who were fooled into believing that in America there 
could be cooperation between the Communists and the Catholics. 

I found that was considered undesirable from the Communist view- 
point, but beyond that I learned toward my latter days in the Com- 
munist Party from material I read in the New Times, which is now 
the name of the Communist International magazine, that the Com- 
munists everywhere plan to wage war on the Catholic Church as the 
base for obliterating all religion. Also, this policy was developed in 
an article to Avhich I shall call your attention setting forth the ideas 
that I learned, namely, of the program to arouse the Protestants 
against the Catholics in this country as a means of causing confusion 
in the United States. 

I have enough confidence in the American Protestants to know that 
that is not going to succeed, but I have to point to this because it is in 
black and white in an official article. I knew about this before I left, 
and pointed to it very temperately in my statement as I left. This 
matter was presented to me in a conference by the comrade who 
worked up the material for this article for the political committee. 
He advised me the aim was to extend the work of the Protestant 
magazine. That is a magazine whose name is "Protestant," but which 
is engaged largely in being anti-Catholic and the responsible Jewish 
organizations have recently condemned it, as you may know. That 
view of the extension of the Protestant work against Catholics was 
confirmed by this article of V. J. Jerome in Political Affairs in April 
1946, in which he links up the Catholic Church with American im- 
jierialism, and in which he shows what he calls the great wealth of 
the Catholic Church and says there has been no sufficient Protestant 
reaction. That innnediately tells the comrades to go out and pose as 
Protestants and arouse that reaction, for when a Communist reads an 
ai-ticle he puts it into action. In this article the recent attack on 
Cardinal Spellman by the Communist councilmen in New York City 
was endorsed as being proper Communist tactics when it was feasible 
to do so. In other words, here is outlined a program which is directly 
opposed to the alleged outstretched-hand idea which the Communists 
formerly said they stood for when they needed to rally everybody, in- 
cluding Catholics, to the defense of the Soviet Union against the 
efficient German war machine. This renewed program of war upon 
the Catholic Churcli is contained in the April 1946 issue of Political 
Affairs as part of their tactics within the United States today. 

Mr. Rankin. Mr. Budenz, is it not a fact that communism is opposed 
to all kinds of religion? 

Mr. Budenz. That is correct. A totalitarian regime, especially one 
built on the materialistic interpretation of history, cannot permit any 
organization of religion except as a servile tool of the all-powerful 

Mr. Rankin. Mr. Budenz, did you go to Moscow? 

Mr. Budenz. I did not. 

Mr. Rankin. You have not been to Moscow? 

Mr. Budenz. I did not have that experience. 

Ml-. Rankin. I heard former Piesident Hoover, and I believe he 
was speaking over the radio when he said there was a streamer across 
the gates of Moscow that read like this : "Religion Is the Opium of 
the People." Now, that was the Communist doctrine, was it not, even 


before you wont into the ]);U'(y, and all the lime yon were in the party, 
is that correct? 

Mr, BiDENz. That was the principle, althon<ih, you see at that time 
they had tlie policy of the outstretched hand, which was the result of 
the Peoples' Front })olicy and they contended that they wanted cooper- 
ation between all religions and the Communists, or specifically the 
Catholics and the Conniumists. 

However. I would like to say this to sort of brino; this to a point: 
The fact of the nuitter is, those who sou<?ht collaboration, like myself 
as an individual, as one member of the party, did so on the basis that 
this outstretched-hand policy would lead to better relationship between 
the two cfroups, and that was roughly in line with the policy of the 
Connnunists at that time. 

Now, it was written by Elizabeth Flynn in the Daily Worker at the 
time I left the party that you could have any religion you chose and 
remain in the Communist Party. That is not true. You cannot have 
any religion, except wliere you are in a particular religion and it 
serves the purpose of the party to keep you there. Even there, as 
Lenin pointed out, the party must fight religious ideology. The lead- 
ers of the party are not permitted to hold any religious belief. As 
proof of that we have the statement of Gilbert Green at the 1935 con- 
vention of the Communist International, its so-called Peoples Front 
convention. In that statement, representing the American Commu- 
nist young peoples organization from this country, the Young Com- 
munist League, Mr. Green pointed out — I cannot now give you the 
exact quotes — but he pointed out that they did allow, when they came 
into association with religious youth, they did allow these youth to 
continue to go to church, but in such a way as not to interfere wnth "our 
atheistic principles." He was there explaining to the Communists 
that atheism was their standard, but sometimes in working with youth 
they had to be more lenient, and, of course, that meant that they would 
try to wean those youth away from religion entirely. That was 
Lenin's instructions 3'ears ago. 

Mr. Raxkix. If it would not break the continuity of your thought, 
it would be an accommodation to the committee at this time if you 
would tell just why you got out of the Communist Party. Give us 
that information at this time, Mr. Budenz. 

Mr. Budenz. Well, I think 3^011 can begin to see from my testimony 
that I was a Peoples' Front Communist. That is to say, I became 
a member of the Communist Party, and very briefly I would like to 
tell how this was, because it is just a personal experience. I became 
a member of the party because of the Seventh Congress of the Com- 
munist International in 1935 promising to cooperate with democratic 
organizations. It seemed to me then that if Hitler was destroyed 
that the Soviet Union would become more democratic. I did not 
have illusions that the Soviet Union was fully democratic, and if 
you will read the letter T wrote to the Daily Worker at that time I 
there made reference to Charles Dickens' statement on early America. 
It was my personal opinion that there were defects in Soviet Russia, 
but that they would get better. I thought after the destruction of 
Hitlerism the Soviet Union would become more democratic and also 
it Avould embark upon a cooperative policy of peace. 


As managinrr editor of the Daily Worker I saw that this was not 
taking i:)lace. I saw that instead of becoming democratic the dic- 
tatorship was more intense, and likewise instead of embarking on 
a peace program there after the war they set forth on this war of 
nerves. There were many indications of that ahead of the Browder 
business. As a matter of fact, right on the eve of the Browder busi- 
ness, Joseph Starobin, the foreign editor of the Daily Worker wrote 
a very indiscreet letter to the editorial Ijoard of the Daily Worker, 
from whence it was snatched up and immediately traveled to the 
ninth floor. And in that letter he said toward the end of the San 
Francisco Conference, that the French couirades, who were used 
largely to beat the Americans, asserted that there should be more 
of an attack upon Stettinius by the American Connnunists. He addexl 
that this was "likewise the opinion of Comrade Manuelsky." This 
letter was very quickly taken by Stachel and it traveled to the ninth 
floor ancl disappeared. This was an instance, before Browder's depo- 
sition showed how things were going. 

There were many indications from the information that came to 
me that the Soviet Union was to begin a policy of hostility on the 
other nations who had been their allies in the war. Of course this was 
disclosed in the Duclos article which said the Tehran pact is "only 
a diplomatic gesture." 

Mr. Rankin. Mr. Budenz, did you discover while you were in the 
party that practically every move had as its design the overthrow 
of tlie Government of the United States, the destruction of our form 
of Government and way of life, including our religious systems and 
our economic system ? 

Mr. Budenz. Well, there is a far-flung development of this idea. I 
found the Communist movement is merely a tool of the Soviet dic- 
tatorship, and in forwarding of a world Soviet dictatorship it means 
the destruction of the present Government of the United States, most 

Mr. Rankin. Now, they also want to effect the overthrow of our 
economic system, what they call the capitalistic system, which simply 
means the right to own property, does it not? I want to read you one 
passage here and see if this is the Communist doctrine, as you under- 
stand it, because the Communist Party wrote this : 

Among the first actions of the Soviet Government would be a decree recog- 
nizing tiie confiscation of the large land ownings. Where this has taken place, 
or authorizing Rich confiscation if it has not yet taken place, converting all 
privately owned hind into the property of the whole people without compensa- 
tion, and the confiscation of all livestock and implements of the large land- 
owners for the use of the people. 

In other words, in addition to outlawing religion and wiping out 
our form of government, they would wipe out our entire economic 
system, as I understand it. 

Mr. BuDKNz. Yes; that is correct, except that I would not like to 
say just "Yes'' there. I would like to discuss it nuich more at length, 
but not now. 

Mr. Thomas. I would like to see Mr. Budenz continue, or we will 
never get through with Mr. Budenz. 

Mr. Rankin. All right; go ahead. 


Mr. BuDKNz. Ill olluu- words, just to say categorically ''Yes" or "No" 
does not satisfy me as the answer I should make, althou<;h it might 
take me quite a*len«>th of time to go into this question, Congressman. 

Ml'. Kaxkix. Yes. 

Mr. IkuKxz. Well, I believe this begins to sum up what I have to 
present to the committee. There is no doubt that there are a num- 
ber of other important things that 1 could bring to your attention. 
As a matter of fact, in regard to the articles of Berger in the Com- 
nuuiist magazine. 1 will lile those with the committee and be satis- 
tied with that for the time being. It had been my intention to go into 
them more deeply, but I think that is unnecessary at this time. I 
picked otit three which explain the outstanding position of Berger- 
Eisler, and without wishing to burden the time of the committee, I 
present those to you. 

It is very evident that he was not and is not a refugee in the ordi- 
nary sense of the word. It is clear here that he occupies an important 
position in the Conununist Party and Communist action because oth- 
erwise he would not so act, and anyone who wrote articles of this 
character, the article which sat down on Foster, and who wrote that 
article with Browder and particularly in regard to the dissolution 
of the Communist International was not someone just picked up in- 
cidentally and told to do this. 

Now, that is a point that I w^ant to emphasize very much. 

As to my own personal contacts with Mr. Berger they are limited 
to two occasions. I was never formally introduced to him, except of 
course in the case of Edwards in 1935. 

I saw him very briefly at the funeral of Jacob Golos in late 1943, 
and at that time I was supposed to be introduced to him. But the 
people present there disappeared so quickly and there was an inter- 
ruption by several people speaking to me so that this did not take 
place, although I was also told then that I knew him from the past. 
This was by Mr. Stachel. At the time of the meeting of the enlarged 
national committee, the exact date of which I will supply later in a 
memorandum to the committee, but it was in 1943 also, I saw Mr. 
Berger-Eisler waiting for JNIr. Brow^ler across the street from the 
national committee meeting place. Mr. Browder and I, as a matter 
of fact, went to the national committee together, and Mr. Browder 
told me that he had to be excused because he had to have a few min- 
utes before the meeting with Hans Berger, the international man. 

Mr. Raxkix. That is, Mr. Eisler? 

Mr. BuDEXZ. Yes: and Browder went across the street and Mr. 
Eisler was Waiting for him and they sat in the automobile and dis- 
cussed things for 10 minutes. We waited for Browder, his attend- 
ant, Harold Smith, and I, and we then went into the hall together. 
The exact date of that I will give to the committee in a memorandum, 
but it was sometime in 1943, according to my remembrance, but the 
existence of Berger-Eisler as the power behind the throne was very 
evident, and I have given you only some few examples. 

There is one instance more that I wanted to give, and it arises 
out of this Runag incident. I have said that Berger was particularly 
insistent upon our bringing forward that the Soviet Russian Govern- 



ment be pictured as "democratic." Of course this insistence centered 
also around the second front and the necessity for pushing argument 
on the second front in the United States. Later on, because the Rus- 
sians and such agencies could not reach us with their subsidized news 
and directives, we did not have enough material and he insisted 
that we use the Soviet Embassy bulletins in this matter, and this 
was reinforced later by Stachel, who was clearly under pressure from 
Berger on these questions. 

As a matter of fact, it was always easy to tell after one of the 
leading comrades had been in touch with someone like Berger. They 
were very much excited, and very bureaucratic, and very eager to put 
something through, even though they could not fully explain it 
themselves. I mention this use of those Soviet Embassy bulletins 
because we had a long period there where we could not get in touch 
with Moscow on full information through articles. It is out of tlie 
scientific ideologic language of such articles that every trained Com- 
munist knows what to do. You have to know that in an editorial 
position in order to carry forward with the assistance of the political 
representative of the political committee and also with the informa- 
tion that came from Mr. Eisler. This was a broad field, and a big 
gap was created by lack of Runag and other like information and 
news that came here from the Soviet capital. Of course, we did have 
some cables from Moscow. John Gibbons, who is Reuters correspond- 
ent there, cabled over sometimes. He was also correspondent for 
the London Daily Worker, but his cables were not considered to be 
enlightening enough. They did not contain sufficient directives. You 
must understand that the Communist Party has a policy line. That 
is obtained partly through these contacts and partly from the articles 
that appear in Pravda, Izvestia, and the rest of the Soviet press. 

If there is anything that would give you a picture of a Communist 
leader it is his feverish search every day of what Pravda or Izvestia 
says to make sure he has got the proper sensitivity regarding the line 
that must be followed for that day or for that period. If there are 
some lapses, it is largely due to difficulties of communication or the 
time element. The Daily Worker once attacked Badoglio as a Fascist 
in a leading editorial and that very day a cable came over saying 
that the Soviet Government had recognized him as a stabilizing influ- 
ence. But the issue of the paper got out ahead of this cable. There 
was a quick change, though, to make Badoglio appear in the light of 
the articles which the press ran and the statements Moscow made. 
So it was one of those little lapses which are merely lapses of time 
and place which are due to difficulties of transmission, but wherever 
possible Pravda and Izvestia are read every day to make sure that 
the Daily Woiker is following what they say in the sense of trans- 
lating it into the lingo of this country. The New Times is now the 
name of the Communist International magazine, which formerly went 
through the transition from the Communist International magazine 
to World Survey, and then to War and the Working Class, and it is 
now the New Times, and that is watched very carefully and studied 
very carefully by all those who want to set the policy and want to 
know what policy is. The only difficulty is the English translation 
comes to America rather late for current events, and therefore articles 
in Pravda and Izvestia have a larger immediate meaning. In addi- 
tion, there had been this Runag and the Intercontinent News, which 


broke down, a diflicultv which was rcnuMliod only in })art, however, 
by the use of the Soviet Embassy bullet ins. 

Counsel has asked me to clarify the ownershii), management, and 
control of the Daily Worker. 

Of course, while I was president of the corporation it was in a pecu- 
liar position. It was the Freedom of the Press Co., Inc., which was 
created duriuir the Hitler-Stalin pact. That was in order to defend 
the Daily Worker at all costs from any legal attack. 

The Freedom of the Press Co., Inc., was put under the ownership of 
three gentlewomen wdio were very nice ladies, and who knew nothing 
at all about what was happening. 

As a matter of fact, they were pure figureheads in even that sense. 
They met with me once every 4 or 6 months just for half an hour, and 
we went over our reports telling them in general what was happening, 
and that was the encl of that. 

They generally were invited to all big mass meetings and were given 
a seat near the front. But they did not know at all what was actually 
happening. To make the paper move, I was named as president and 
Ben Davis and the other officer rotated. Davis was secretary and 
then vice president, and Howard Boldt was secretary and afterwards 
vice president. 

When this was decided upon, Browder saw me and told me it was 
going to take place in advance, and said one reason it was taking place 
was due to the fact that first of all I had shown that I liad no technical 
difficulties, and secondly he was sure by this process of putting such 
people in charge the Daily Worker would be defended from any legal 
•jittack during the Hitler-Stalin period. 

That was the sole reason for having this corporation in this form. 

As a matter of fact, in the articles creating this corporation it was 
stated — I do not know the exact wording any more, but to safeguard 
it under the alleged ownership by tliese gentlewomen, it was even stated 
it would always follow the viewpoint of the Communist Party. That 
was inserted in the articles of incorporation. So that in this manner 
it continued to be, and, of course, it was always an organ of the Com- 
munist Party. 

That was the situation during the time I w^as there. 

Mr. Raxkix. The Connnunist Party, Mr. Budenz, is nothing but a 
fifth column in this country; is it a fifth column for communism in 
Europe ? 

Mr. Bttdexz. Well, I have stated its character. It is a puppet fifth 
column of the Soviet dictatorship. 

Mr. Rankin. It works through various what you and I call Com- 
munist-front organizations, does it not? 

Mr. BuDEXz. Very frequently, yes. 

I have only given the beginning of the story, but this is very im- 
portant insofar as I could give it. 

Mr. Raxkin. You might discuss those Communist-front organiza- 

Mr. BuDEXz. I would like to ask the committee today to excuse me 
from that. Congressman. I would like to be much more precise in 
discussing it than I could at this time. 

Mr. Raxkix. You are going to discuss that at a later date? 

Mr. BuDEX'z. Yes; I am going to discuss that at a later elate. I 
would like to explain here that I am dealing here with a conspiracy, 
and I want that understood. 


Mr. Rankin. Yes. 

Mr. BuDP]NZ. A conspiracy with wliicli you have to be very precise 
in your definitions. Otherwise we will liave another attempt to put 
down the little iron curtain on the ground that a person's credibility is 
not of any value. 

I think it is time to stop that in America. I think it is time that 
Americans should be able to tell the truth about all organizations such 
as this fifth column of Soviet Russia, the truth in temperate language. 
But in order to do that I am impressed, gentlemen, with the fact that 
this information must be precise and must be as accurate as you can 
make it for two reasons ; first, because you want to have credibility and 
the truth in wdiat is uttered, and, secondly, because at the same time 
you want to establish and make clear the diiferent degrees by which 
people are enmeshed in this net of fronts, and we cannot do that with- 
out considering the matter carefully. 

Mr, Rankin. I want to say, Mr. Budenz, that we are going to give 
you all the time you want if it takes from now until Christmas or from 
new until this time next year because that is what the American people 
want, the facts and the real truth. 

Mr. Thomas. This 'conspiracy that you refer to, as I understand it, 
is the most important point of your statement today. It is not clear 
to me, however, who are the participants in this conspiracy. Just very 
briefly who participates in this conspiracy? 

Mr. Budenz. Well, I have indicated already that the conspiracy is 
the underground apparatus of the Communist movement, linked up 
with the open Communist Party here, and these tw^o agencies have 
expanded themselves into the front organizations and other organ- 
izations which they penetrate. However, the conspiracy itself is 
directed hj the Soviet Union through this underground apparatus, 
and is reflected in the Communist Party in its policies in the United 

Mr. Thomas. All right, this conspiracy is made up l)y participants 
in the conspiracy 

Mr. Budenz (interposing). Correct; it is headed by the- 

Mr. Thomas (interposing). It is headed by the Communist Party 
in the United States? 

Mr. Budenz. Correct. 

Mr. Thomas. And Communist-front organizations in the United 

Mr. Budenz. As creations of this conspiracy, that is right. Some 
of the participants in the latter groups have knowledge of what they 
are doing to a greater or less degree, you understand. 

Mr. Thomas. All right, now, those are the participants. Now, what 
is the conspiracy ? 

Mr. Budenz. Mr. Molotoff has stated that very well. 

Mr. Thomas. Never mind Mr. Molotoff; let Mr. Budenz state it. 

Mr. Budenz. I am drawing it out of the experience I have learned. 

Mr. Thomas. All right. 

Mr. Budenz. They are trying to establish world dictatorship under 
the control of the Kremlin dictatorship. 

Mr. Thomas. All right, that is a good answer. 

Mr. Budenz. That is it. 

Mr. Rankin. In other words, they are trying to spread communism 
throughout the world. 


Mr. Ik'PKNZ. Not only coininiinisiu, but coinimmiMii under the 
specific direction of tlio Kremlin dicl;itorshii). 

Mr. Muxivr. I think the distinction you are trying; to make, Mr. 
Budenz, is that Avhat they actually have in Russia is not the com- 
munism of Marx and En<:les, but a dictatorship and conmiunism under 
■which people are denied a o;reat many (hinj^s under the concepts of 

Mr. Budenz. The point of the matter is the reality lias certainly 
not lived up to expectations. The promised witlierin<>- away of the 
state is certainly a king Avay off and Stalin has practically declared 
the idea buried in the Soviet" Union, but that is a longer-time question. 

Mr. ^IrxHT. I Avas just mentioning that. 

Mr. BunEXZ. What I would like to state is we have here a totali- 
tarian regime connnitted to the form of Soviet dictatorship existing 
in Ivussia and >(eking to expand that dictatorship to world domina- 
tion including, of course, all countries under this domination. 

Mr. Tiio.A[As. If this consi)iracy exists, and the purpose of it is to 
l)ut us all under the dictatorship of the proletariat : why (loes not the 
Department of Justice of the United States take some action? 

Mr. Budenz. Well. that, of co\n-se. I do not know fnlly. xVs a 
matter of fact, this dictatorslii]) of the proletariat, of course, is the 
dictatorship — let ns understand — of Stalin, Molotov, et al. because 
Stalin has been proclaimed the leader, the teacher, and guide. We 
must understand that to get the full conception of this, it seems to 
me. Why does not the Department of Justice do something? That 
I really do not know. There are certain reasons, of course. First, 
ibnericans correctly are very jealous of what we call civil rights, and 
a conspiracy of this character takes advantage of democracy by using 
democratic'institutions to destroy democracy. Therefore, our laws 
very frequently are not designed to meet conspiracies of this charac- 
ter. That is one thing. 

Mr. Thomas. Right at that point, and in this connection, on October 
7 of this year I wrote a letter to Attorney General Clark calling upon 
him to crack down on this Moscow-directed fifth column operating 
in the United States. I submitted to the Attorney General five spe- 
cific violations of the Federal statutes. Among these violations was 
the Vorys Act which required that every organization, sul)ject to 
foreign control, which engaged in political activities, shall be required 
to register with the Attorney General. Do you not consider the Com- 
munTst Party at the ])resent time to be in violation of that act? 

Mr. BuDEXz. From my experience, I do. 

Mr. Thomas. All right. I also called the Attorney General's at- 
tention to the INfcCormick Registration act, which requires that every 
person who is now an agent of a foreign government shall be regist- 
ered with the Secretary of State. 

I would like to know which oificials and members of the Communist 
Party you consider to fall under the provisions of this act. 

Mr. "Budexz. Certainly all the leading officers of the Communist 
Partv. The record sliows thev just follow what Moscow wants them 
to do. The record is yerj clear. 

Mr. Thomas. All right. Was not the Freedom of the Press Co., Inc.. 
n dmmny corpoi-ation set up just to get around this McCormick Act ? 

Mr. Budexz. Yes; in a large measure it was. 

Mr. Thomas. That is right. 


On this matter of the Daily Worker, I would like to know if any 
fraud or misrepresentation was perpetrated in securing second-class 
mailing privileges from the Post Ofiice Department? 

Mr. BuDENZ. That I do not know. After consideration, I might 
recall it, but I do not recall anything right now. 

Mr. Thomas. If the Communist Party and the Freedom of the Press, 
Inc., and some of these Communist leaders have all violated the specific 
statutes of the Government, can you see any reason why the Attorney 
General should not take action against them? 

Mr. BuDENZ. Well, I think that is self-evident. 

Mr. Thomas. That is right. 

Mr, Rankin. I am going to answ^er your question. There are too 
manj Reds and fellow travelers that have crept into the Department of 
Justice, and w^e are going to need to clean house and fumigate and get 
the Department of Justice back on the beam. 

Mr. Landis. Are you familiar with anyone who has advised the 
Political Action Committee, especially regarding the election of 1944? 

Mr. BuDENZ. If you will permit, I would like to reserve all these 
questions until later so that I can answer them in a veiy precise man- 
ner. There is no doubt that the Communists were very active in PAC, 
in connection with it. 

Regarding all these political activity questions, because I want to be 
very precise and accurate, I would like to refrain from discussing those 
today, if the committee will permit. 

Mr. Landis. Perhaps you could answer this regarding Communist 
policy. Is it not a fact that undei' communism the state is the supreme 
master over the life of its citizens? 

Mr. BuNDENZ. It most decidely is because it has more than control. 
It has absolute power over life and livelihood. As a matter of fact, 
where is the security of the Soviet system, the very alleged basis of 
the sjstem? I cannot see it, because of the fact that your livelihood is 
at the mercy of the state and the state is actually four or five men in 
control of the Kremlin. 

When those writers in the Soviet Union that I spoke of a moment 
ago were declared to have bourgeoise ideas, wdiich must of course have 
meant western democratic ideas, do we not know from past experience 
that they lost not only their jobs but the source of all livelihood? 
When 50 percent of the Communist Party officials themselves in the 
Ukraine, according to the reports, wei-e deposed from their posts 
because they could not collect the grain fast enough from the peasants, 
they likewise may have faced, unless they conformed, the loss of their 
livelihood, so, the individual's livelihood, wdiich is an important part 
of his make-up, is dependent upon the all-powerful state, which is 
dependent upon the will of three or four all-powerful men. 

Mr. Landis. I understand that you used to be a lawyer, and do you 
not understand that the trade-unions are agents of the state in Russia? 

Mr, BuDENz. They are. 

Mr. Landis. These miions in Russia are helpless to protect labor 
against exploitation. 

Mr. BuDENz. They have admitted that themselves. We have re- 
cently had articles in TRUD, the Soviet trade-union magazine, which 
"was quoted by Drew Middleton in the New York Times magazine 
section recently, in which they pointed out several cases, but one re- 


mains in my mind spocitically of a minin<>' ()i)ei'ati()n avIutc the workei-s 
wore not paid for weeks and months, I cannot reniember whether it 
was () weeks or 6 months. We can see clearly, though, tluit there was 
not any talk abcnit strikes in that case. If tliey had tlion^ht of strik- 
ing, they wonld not dare do it. The secret i)olice are everywhere, in 
their unions, and you can go to Siberia, as a matter of fact, for talking 
along that line. The point of the matter is I want to show that the 
trade-unions were not able, except by being ])rodded, to ])rotect these 
people. They are abject agents of the autocratic state. 

Mr. Landis. The American labor should know about that. 

Mr. BuDENZ. Thej'^ certainly should. 

Mv. Lanois. Many of them are misinformed. 

Mr. BuDENZ. There is more to this than that, but today I am i!ot 
prepared to bring it forward. There is very much more than this. 

Mr. Landis. I suppose that you are familiar with the 1945 shipping 
strike. That was the strike that prevented the bringing of some 
American boys back from overseas. I wonder if that would be an 
example of political sabotage. 

Mr. BuDENz, I would prefer to take up all these things all at once 
at some other time, if you do not mind, so that I can be exact and 

Mr. Thomas. You mentioned the Soviet secret police in your state- 
ment this morning, and you said in your statement that the Soviet 
secret police were here. AVliat did you mean by that? 

Mr. BuDENz. I meant rei)resentatives of the sci-called NKVD. I 
will only say now that I know they were here because I dealt with 
them for 2 yeai*s and slightly more, not in espionage but in another 
operation, and I must inform the committee of that in executive 

Mr. Thomas. In regard to that, do you still believe that they are 
here now i 

Mr. BuDExz. It would be a surprise if they were not. 

Mr. MuNDT. Professor Budenz, I wonder if you are at all familiar 
with any of the work or activities of the so-called National Council 
of American Soviet Friendship, Inc. 

Mr. BiDExz. May I make a statement, first? 

Regarding this question of the Soviet police, Mr. Thomas, I am 
prepared to discuss that ])ublicly, but with regard to some of these 
other questions, I want to answer them very carefully so that I can 
present those matters to the connnittee in the proper light. As a 
matter of fact, I want to say that I do know of my own knowledge 
that Soviet secret police were in xVmerica ; that they were here for a 
number of months and that I had contact with them as an assignment 
from the l^aity, meeting them over and over in different restaurants 
in New York. 

Mr, Thomas. That was in what year? 

Mr. BuDKNZ. 19?/; and 19:',7, so far as I recall ; and part of 19:58, too. 

Mr. Thomas. What kind of visas did they have^ 

Mr. BuDEXz, That I do not know. 

Mr. Thomas, But you are of the opinion that they are here now 
also ( 

Mr. BuDENz. I certainly am, 

Mr, MuxDT. I wonder if you are familiar at all with the work or 
activities of the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, 


Inc., which publishes a biweekly paper called The Reporter, which 
our studies ha^e indicated has the same fidelity to the Communist line 
that the Daily Worker has? 

Mr. Rankin. Before you answer that, there is a question that I 
would like to ask him regardiuo- what he was testifying- to a while 
ago. As I understand you, then, and I would like to get this clear; 
every workingman in Russia, or in any Communist country, is the 
slave of the state? Every individual is the slave of the state, and the 
state is operated l)y a very small p<n-tion of the population; we will 
say 1 percent of the population? 

"Mr. BuDENZ. That is correct. By the way, I have not been to Soviet 
Russia. I am one of those people who do not have the benefit of educa- 
tion for foreign service at the Marx-Lenin Institute in ^Moscow, al- 
thought most of the Comnuinist leaders have. It is surprising how 
restricted is the leadership in the Communist Party, actually. Most 
of the leadership have been educated in the institut ' in Moscow, which 
is similar to the schools they had in Germany, or Hitler had, to train 
people in foreign work. I am an American by birth and experience, 
and have never been outside of the United States, physically, except 
brief visits to Canada. 

As a matter of fact, the conditions inside the Communist Part}' of 
the United States without ])olice power partly show you what exists 
in the Soviet Union with their all-seeing ])olice i^ower. 

Mr. Rankin. In a certain district in New York, if they had the 
benefit of the police, they would have made the election unanimous? 
Mr. BuDENz. They make it over there pretty nearly unanimous. 
May I also ask to be relieved of answering the question proi)ounded 
by Mr. Mundt. 

Regarding these front organizations. I will volunteer, since the com- 
mittee presses, to bring this to the attention of the committee in an 
organized form in whatever way you see fit, either by another appear- 
ance or by a written report under affidavit. 

There are cei'tain variations of participation of these various or- 
ganizations, and I want to be absolutely accurate in designating them. 
Mr. Rankin. You are speaking of the so-called Communist front 

Mr. BuDENz. Yes; I am. 

Mr. Rankin. I would prefer you make another appearance, and 
be prepared to go into this question thoroughly. I am speaking for 

Mr. BuDENZ. I shall be glad to do so. 

Mr. Mundt. As a matter of general policy, and from your observa- 
tions because of your connection with the Comnumist Party, were 
special efforts made by the party leadershi]) to make contacts with 
the schools and children in schools and colleges to advance the Com- 
numist line? 

Ml-. Bi'DENZ. Well, th€\y try to make advances to every group in 
eveiT possible way. It is well i-ecoguized. and Conununist discus- 
sion has shown so. that the Connntmist moxcnient of itself is not going 
to get anywhere in America. That was the premise of Browder's 
ai'gument, but on the other side wc find James Allen having that ai'- 
gument for another reason. America is a hopeless capitalistic coun- 
try, he contended. That does not mean that the Connnunists are 


iroiiiir to (iiiit bcinix active lierc : it nioiuis that tlicir tactics have to 
chaiiirc. However, thev. therefore, trv ti>roii<rh all sorts of tellow- 
ti-avelin*; or«j:aiiizations aiul {jfroups to eiitei- into every phase ot Amer- 
ican life — I mean from Hollywood to Hell Gate — every phase of 
American life tliey try to enter into and ])eneti'ate. and do it not 
nnder Conunnnist <j.nise. but under C'onnuunist disj^iiise; that is to say, 
makin*:: themselves out as liberals or as trade-unionists, or whatever 
the case may be, and then thej' j^enetrate the or<ranization that they 
wish to penetrate. 

Mr. Mixivr. 1 am not tryin<r to pin you down on tletails until we 
come to that part of the testimony. You know, as a matter of per- 
sonal knowledge that one of the special devices that the Communists 
use is an elt'ort to work throuirh schools and collejjes and the childi-en 
thereof, either directly or throuji^h a friend organization. 

Mr. Btdexz. That is correct. 

Mr. MrxoT. You talked this morning about the dissolution of the 
Third Intei-national and how that was actually not achieved. Is the 
Tliird International synonymous with the word "Comintern"? 

Mr. BuDExz. Comintern is an abbreviation for the Communist In- 
ternational. So is CI. 

^Ir. MuxDT. I received a letter about a month ago from Victor 
Kervchanko. about whom you probably know, and I had asked him 
some questions about this dissolution of the Comintern, and he said, 
as you have said, that it was simply a device for deceiving outside 
parties. He listed several names, one of which I think you used to- 
day. I am not too familiar with these Russian terms, but he said 
to prove the point, some of the men participating in the dissolution 
were Dimtriff. of Bulgaria, who is a puppet dictator of the country of 
Bulgaria, and Thorez. whom you also mentioned today, is in France. 

I wonder if your obserAations and vour knowledge would tend to 
give 3'ou information A'erifynig what he said to me in that letter 
along that line. 

Mr. BuDExz. That is the substance of the testimony today, that is. 
that first of all the Communist organization in the United States — 
not just casually but virtually 100 percent — serves the will of Moscow 
at the particular moment. 

^»lr. MuXDT. Do vou limit that to tlie Communist organization in 
the United States, or would you say the Communist organization in 
any country, or outside of Russia? 

Mr. BuDEX'z. In any country. 

Mr. AuAMsux. I would like to ask you if you know anything about 
a Soviet agent named Arkady Soberlov. 

Mr. BuDENz. No, not by that name. He may have many other 
names, of course. 

Mr. Adamsox. That is the only name that I hapjx'ii to have at the 

Mr. Laxdis. I have in mind when Mr. Browder was put out of 
office, temporarily at least, and they changed their line. It looks like 
during the war they had the Tehran line everywhere so that they 
could get materials from us. The Communist line, it seemed, was to 
get tlie materials ])i-oduced in the United States to win the war. 

Mr. BuDEXz. Tliat is right. 


iNIr. Landis. And after the war ended, why, then they changed the 
line and the Duclos article came out in France, and that expressed an 
opinion opposite to the opinion expressed by Mr. Browder. 

Ml". BuDKNz. Well, Browder was following the line all riglit. That 
was the line for the war, the Tehran line. Many Comnmnists hardly 
knew what they meant by it, they sort of chanted "Tehran, Tehran." 
The Tehran line was the line of "generations of peace" pledged by 
Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt, at Tehran, which Duclos says is 
"only a diplomatic gesture." The point of the matter is Browder 
had been faithfully carrying out the line, but it changed, and one way 
that Moscow could show that it has changed thoroughly was by demot- 
ing Browder. He was supposed to take his medicine. He has been 
rewarded by being made the representative of the Soviet book trusts 
in tliis country. 

His case is something like another example, up in Canada. The 
Communist Party has supposedly disciplined Sam Carr for disap- 
pearing from the Canadaian hearings regarding espionage. But they 
are the very ones who have helped to hide him. A Communist is sup- 
posed to put not only his intellect but his reputation on the altar 
of devotion to Stalin. Tliose are no exaggerated words. You can 
read the resolution of 19.'>,5, and it is Stalin who is the source of life 
and leadership and teaching to the Connnunists of the United States. 
The resolution of the Seventh Congress in 1935 is very clear on that 

Mr. Landis. 1 would like to ask a question on religion. I uiiderstand 
that it is grudgingly tolerated in Russia and controlled by the state. 

Mr. BuDENz. Well, it is amazing what you can learn by being editor 
of a Communist newspaper here without being in Soviet Russia, be- 
cause you have to be advised of Soviet ])lans and policies. We were 
advised that — sure, they have freedom of religion over there, but it is 
easy to charge $100 or $150 a month for electricity for a Mass. There 
are hundreds of ways that you can prevent this religious worship 
without interfering openly with religious woi-shi]>. That was what 
was told me among other things. As a result, the Orthodox Church 
has become more of a tool of the state than it was in the days of the 
czars. Nobody pays any attention to the Soviet persecution of the 
Catholic Uniats. The Catholic Uniats at the point of machine guns 
are being sent to Siberia and elsewhere for trying to stay out of the 
Orthodox Church, the state church of Russia. 

I thiidv that it is a shame, a disgrace, that more of these facts have 
not been publicized — the ways that the Catliolics are being persecuted 
by the Soviet in the newly dominated territories, especiall3\ 

This last war was supposed to be the war for the "four freedoms." 
They are much mutilated l)y now\ That is an indication of what has 
hai^pened, the terror against the Catholics. There may be, inciden- 
tally, more, Mr. Landis, but I just kuow that. 

Mr. Rankin. xVs I said, the policy of the Connnunist regime toward 
religion was ex])rossed on that streamer that President Hoover told us 
was across the gates of Moscow, that religion is the opiate of the people. 

You spoke about the attacks on the capitalistic system. We people 
throughout the country, wlien we speak of capitalism, think of rich 
people. What they mean by the ca))italistic system is the right to own 
pi'iA'ate pro[)erty; is not that right? 

Mr. BuDENz. That is what it develops into. 


Mr. Rankix. Tti otlior words, that is what thoy say in lliis article 
that L road to you a while a<;o, adopted hy the Comiminist Party of 
the Ignited States — that they would take over not only all of the fac- 
tories and railroads and mines, but they would take over all the stores, 
all of the houses, all Hllinfr stations, and all lands and make every 
individual the slave of the state. Is that ri<>ht '^ 

Mr. BrnKxz. The livi'lilmod of every individual under the totali- 
tarian Soviet dietatorship is dependent upon the state, and the state 
is dependent npon two or three individuals in the Kreudin. 

Mr. Raxkix. And the state can tell him when and where he shall 
work ; is that correct ? 

Mr. BunKxz. Yes. 

]\rr. Raxkix. And when and where he shall not work? 

Mr. BuDKXz. Correct. 

Mr. Raxkix. They can remove him from his job and starve him to 
death, if they want to. 

Mr. BuDEXZ. That is correct. 

Mr. Rax'kix. Regardin<): these overrnn countries, are j^ou familiar 
with the rape of innocent women, the murder of innocent men, the 
plunder of the peasants, and the robbery of the helpless people in 
those areas by the Commnnist refjime? 

Mr. BuDEXZ. I know that Europe is in a mnch w^orse condition 
than it was after World War I and that the major bad actors in this 
regime have been the Red Army and those connected with it. 

Mr. Raxkix. I tliink that you have answered the question pretty 
well. Yon speak of communism and fascism. What is the dif- 
ference ? Is one hio;h popalornm and the other low pophigrum ? 

Mr. BuDEX-^z. Out of my experience I find that they have very much 
the same result. They are both totalitarian regimes, the all-powerful 
state becoming a divinity in itself whereby you have the god-man 
Stalin, unable to make a mistake, being the reservoir of all goodness 
to the Soviet people, and the same thing over in Germany, the god- 
man Hitler, the Fuehrer. The same principles follow exactly. Form- 
erly I tried to distinguish between the two : it can't be done. They 
are the same. Why should we not admit it ? They produce the same 
results exactly. The rule is in the hands of two or three people, and 
as I liave shown, the so-called leaders elsewhere have surrendered 
their whole intellectual capacity to these dictators. They have only 
to follow what they are told to do. or they are unhorsed from their 
positions, and they are. therefore, mere echoes. They have ceased to 
think. I mean that they have ceased to think when it comes to any 
contradiction to the leaders of the Soviet or Hitlerite state, as the 
case may be. 

The result of this is that yon do not ai-gue to a conclusion, you argue 
from a conclusion. As a matter of fact, what does every Communist 
leader do? I know that process very well. Would anyone ask at 
any time: Is this decision of Moscow right or wrong? Would you 
everv sav anvthing like that? No! You sav, "How comes this to 
be such a wonderful decision?"" And you proceed with the cas- 
uistry that only comes from training to prove that it, Soviet-created 
view or decision, is the splendid thing that could happen for 
America and for humanitv and everybody else at this particular 
time. It is the will of Stalin as given from Moscow, from Pravada, 
the Xew Times, and elsewhere, and that makes it perfect. That is a 


comfortable position because you have your conclusions outlined for 
you, but it is a destruction of the intellect. This whole business which 
is supposed to be founded on a Marxist-Leninist science, which claims 
that it elevates the intellect to a scientific capacity, in reality destroys 
the intellect com])letely. We see this in the case of William Z. 
Foster, and if you will read his article of September 1945 in Political 
Affairs, you will see that he says that he feared expulsion from the 
party. He said, "We have nol had democracy or democratic cen- 
tralism here'' — that is the phrase by which they deceive themselves — 
"we have had only centralism." When he got into the saddle would 
you not think that Mr. Foster would beoin to introduce the demo- 
cratic centralism he talks about? He did just the opposite. 

I introduced a resolution in that national committee session of June 
1945, even though I already saw the bankruptcy of the 
movement, declaring for democratic procedure, for the creation of a 
party commission to develop democratic action in the party. The 
whole idea that I raised was suppressed. The last thing they wanted 
was real democratic discussion in the organization, because how can 
you have democratic discussion if you wish to liand out a dictated line 
to peopled They must accept it, whether they will or not. When 
Foster got to be leader — and this is the point that I want to make — did 
he end exjndsions ? Why. they have just ex])elled Ruth ]\IcKinney for 
accusing Foster of Browderism. I am speaking now of Euth McKin- 
ney, the author of My Sister Eileen. They expelled the writer Verii 
Smith and Bill Dunn. too. They expelled them and a number of others 
for accusing Foster of Browderism. 

The point of the matter is that no one can luive any opinion that is 
independent of Moscow, even in one iota. Tliat is the case, whether 
Browder or Foster is the puppet leader. That is wliat I wanted to 

Mr. Laxdis. How do you account for the fact that the intellectuals 
in America can follow this party line? 

Mr. BuDENZ. Because it gives them a kind of certainty. They see 
certain weaknesses in our present system, with all of its merit, and 
that is, for instance, the constant return of the business cycle and other 
things of that character. They start out with the idea of remedying^ 
that condition, and they get enmeshed into the whole system of this 
conspirational and lying character. 

Secondly, I would like to sny at this point that the intellectuds. and 
particularly the so-called liberals, are of course meat for the Com- 
munists. The Communists, as I have said in quotation marks, called 
them "soft-headed and soft-hearted liberals.'' and to some extent that 
is a correct designation. They rush out to defend the Conununist line, 
without any responsibilities on their part. It is a very comfortable 
position to be in, by the way. You do not have any of the responsibili- 
ties of the Connnunist leadershij), and on the other hand you have the 
satisfaction of acting very progressively, as they call it. because the 
Communists keep har])ing on progressive as they do opponents P'ascist. 
The lib(M-als aiv the first line of defense for the Connnunists. '\'\nien T 
say liberals. T want to be thoroughlv undei-stood. I mean b\ liberals 
those who ally tliemselves with tlie Connnunist cause. There are also 
liberals who are opposed to Communists. These pro-Comminiist 
people, ninoiisf whom the intellectuals are very nnich represented, first 


start out with ^ixnl will toward the woi-hl with the idea of reformin<r 
it, and then before you know if you find that they repivsent a certain 
viewpoint; they are i)arrolino- overy current Connnunist i)hrase and 
let nie tell you from my own experience, Congressmen, it is the hardest 
thin<^ in the world to admit that you are wrong. I know that from my 
own hesitancy for '2 years to admit tliat T was wrong and to hope that 
things would turn out dillerent from what they were in fact. There- 
fore, the intellectually proud liberals are enmeshed in this thing. 

Mr. ]Nri XDT. Mr. Chairman, if we may digress from the discussion 
of Henry Wallace for a minute, I want to give a little documentary 
evidence from a high source, that is, if we could remove the fog which 
confuses so much thinking among the Americans, that there is a great 
distinction l)etween fascism ancl c(mimunism, and they are sort of 
luitural enemies 

Mr. BuxDENZ. Fundamental!}^, there is no distinction. 

Ml'. MuNDT. They are the same, and if w^e could get the average 
American to realize that, we could focus our attack on all of these 
"isms'' and drive them out of public life and out of the position of 

I want to read one paragraph supporting exactly what I have said, 
from what I consider one of the best public addresses given in America 
in the last quarter of a century. I am going to read from a speech 
that J. Edgar Hoover made on September ;^0 before the National 
Convention of the American Legion in San Francisco, Calif., bearing 
on this point that you have made. 

He said : » 

We of this generation liave faced two great menaces in America, fascism and 
communism. Botli are materialistic ; both are totalitarian ; botli are antireligi- 
ous ; botli are degrading and inhuman. In fact, tliey differ little except in this: 
Communism has spread fascism and fascism spawns communism. Both are 
the antithesis of American belief in liberty and freedom. 

From your experience as the leader in one of those movements, to 
wit, communism, would you say that j^our experience gives merit to 
that particular point ? 

Mr. BuDExz. I think ^[v. Hoover is very well informed. 

Mr. Eaxkix. One fellow stated that communism and fascism were 
both symptoms of the same disease; that one of them is the fever 
and the other the chill to dying civilization. 

Mr. Thomas. Before we get into the chills and fever I would like 
this article to be part of the record. 

Mr. Raxkix. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. Thomas. You mentioned Eugene Demiis. Did you say that he 
was in technical difficulty? 

Mr. BuDEXz. W^ell, I raised that point Avith very great reluctance 
because he expressed it in a half-way manner, but he gave that state- 
ment that he was in technical difficulty. 

Mr. Thomas. That is Eugene Dennis? 

Mr, BuDENz. Eugene Dennis said that. 

Mr. Thomas. And by technical difficulty did you mean that it had 
something to do with a passport? 

Mr. BuDExz, It had something to do with a false passport or some 
equivalent "technical difficulty" activity, which disturbed liim. 


Mr. Thomas. How long ago was that? 

Mr. BuNDENZ. Well, as I say, he raised that with me twice. Once 
was befoi-e lie went iindergroimd ; the other time when he emerged 
from the iindergronnd. so that would be — well, that would be around 
1940. first, and then later, in 1942. 

Mr. Thomas. Did he ever get out of those difficulties? 

Mr. BuDExz. That I do not know. 

Mr. Thomas. Was any action taken against Eugene Dennis tliat 
you know of by the Government? 

Mr. BuDENZ. Not that I know of. 

Mr. Ada3isox. I w(^uld like to ask another question. 

You have described how these various operatives go underground 
for periods of time. Do you know where the mone}^ comes from to 
support these gentlemen while they are secretly parading around as 
t i red businessmen ? 

Mr. Bldexz. That is a pretty difficult problem. It seems as though 
there are as many money sources if not more than there are activities. 

Mr. Thomas. The reason I brought out the matter of Eugene Dennis 
now was that under the old committee we had a witness come before us 
and tell us that one Earl Browder had been in technical difficulty 
and as a result of that testimony the Government did take action; 
Browder, Earl Browder, was sent to jail. Now I would like to know 
whetlier the Government is going to do anything in regard to Eugene 

Mr. BuDExz. I have not seen it discussed. 
' Mr. Thomas. I think, Mr. Adamson, you ought to get in touch with 
the Department of Justice to find out what they have done about 
Eugene Dennis. 

Mr. Adamsox. I shall do that, Mr. Thomas. 

Mr. Raxkix. Mr. Budenz, you spoke a while ago of some Red pro- 
fessors that have been placed in key positions in our educational in- 
stitutions. Are you in position to go into that at this time or would you 
rather reserve that for a future date? 

Mr. BuDExz. I would rather reserve this business of the front 
activities to a future date. 

Mr. Raxkix. That will be satisfactory. I want to say to you when 
that time comes that there are so many of these angles; that is one of 
them. And. I would like you to discuss the school of communism that 
some of these Red professors have been going to in Russia. 

Also, we want to go into the question of Connnunist influence 
infiltrating into the moving-picture industry, the radio, and the press 
of the country as well as these Communist-fi'ont organizations as they 
are commonly known, because this committee is dedicated to going 
the full length to protect this Government against subversive activities. 

Mr. Adamsox. Mr. Chairman, may I also add that when the witness 
retu]-ns, that the date the committee will fix before you adjourn here 
today, I wouUl also hope that he will be able to give us something 
in connection with the activities here in the Russian churches. We 
have received many letters and many stories concerning the attempted 
organization or the coming in of the old Orthodox Russian churches 
in this country by representatives from Moscow. 

Mr. Raxkix. We would like to have you go into the whole picture, 
Mr. Budenz. " _ 


Mr. BioKXz. You can iiiulerstaiul that I will do the best I can. 
Of eourse my information on some (juestions will be limited. On 
others it will be much more extensive. On many of the (juestions you 
have asked me today I can thi'ow a lot of lii;lit; on others 1 will bring 
data before you, giving you some idea of the front organizations on 
Avhicli I can throw some light. But I want to be in this i)osition: I 
want to bring the information to you very carefully and specifically 
and. so far as I can, I shall do so. 

There is one other caution that I want to give in testimony of this 
kind, and tliat is to repeat that we are dealing Avith conspiracy, which 
very frequently does not let the left hand know what the right hand 
is doing. But of course some things are specific, based upon their 
having become in full force and effect, and imdeniable, and that 
is anothei- reason Avliy I wish to be as specific as I can. 

Mr. Laxdis. 1 wonder if you are familiar with some Federal work- 
ers? I understand from what I have heard some of the Federal 
workers, that is, in some of the departments, such as the State Depart- 
ment, have been in the Connnunist Party and they have come out and 
opposed some of the policies that have been presented, and their opposi- 
tion may have resulted in some changes in the policies. 

Mr. BuDEXz. That I will also discuss with you, if you please, later. 

^Ir. MuxDT. I would like to ask a question there concerning how 
carefully have you checked into the passport of and also the citizen- 
ship status of this Hans Berger? 

Mr. Raxkix. If you do not mind, Mr. Mundt, we will discuss that 
in executive session. Would that be all right? 

Mr. ]\Ii:xDT. I do not see any objection to doing it now. 

Mr. Adamsox'. I understand that he is here on what miglit be 
termed a transit visa, without going into the technicalities that might 
portray communications from the Department of State. He has no 
business to be here now. 

Mr. MuxDT. AVhat I was getting at principally was this, and you 
can answer it in open session : I want to be sure that he remains here 
and that we have an opportunity to document this whole matter and 
he must not get out before we have that opportunity. 

]Mr. Adamsox'. Yes; I will take the necessary steps to see to that. 

Mr. Raxkix'. He is under subpena? 

Mr. Adamsox. He is under subpena now. 

Mr. MuxDT. And you can assure us that he will be here. 

Mr. Adamsox. I w411 take that precaution. 

Mr. RAXKIX^ The committee will go into executive session. There 
are some things we want to discuss among ourselves. 

(Whereupon the committee proceeded to the consideration of 
business in executive session ; after which it adjourned subject to call 
of the chairman.) 

Exhibit B 


(By Earl Browder) 

This twenty-fifth aiinivpi'pary of the ostahlislmicnt of Soviet powoi- is witness 
to the most profound change of the attitude of tiie people of the United States 
as a whole toward the Union of Soviet Socialist Kepnitlies and its great leaders. 
For the first time there is almost universal understanding of the Soviet Union 
as a stage in the rise of mankind to higher civilization. Tliere is a high and 


rising evaluation of the Soviet Union as the most ijowerful friend and ally of 
the United States. And there is love for and gratitude toward the Soviet Union 
as the power which has so far saved this country and world democracy from 
destniction by the Axis aggressors. 

Nothing in modern history has so profoundly stirred the American masses as 
the heroic defense of Stalingrad. Americans know their own fate is being 
decided in that battle. Americans are ashamed that the full force of our own 
country has not yet been thrown into the scale through the opening of the 
western front in Europe. For the great mass of Americans now understand 
full well that they can emerge from this war a free people only if they fight 
this war as a part of the United Nations, side by side with the Soviet Union, in full 
partnership, unitedly sharing its costs and burdens in full as they will jointly 
share tlie fruits of victory. 

There are still some reactionary cliques in America whicii cling to their old 
dreams of helping to destroy the Soviet Union and making partnership with Hitler 
in dividing up the world. They are not large in numbers, but they are power- 
ful. They are the most bitter opponents of the second front and the advo- 
cates of a negotiated "peace" witli Hitler. They still dominate nuich of the 
American newspaper world. They represent some of the most iiowerful industrial 
monopolists in America. Their intluence holds back the iannense potential 
power of the United States, and prevents it from l>eiiig thrown into full action 
to smash Hitlerism now. But tliese native American Fascists are rapidly losing 
their power over the Nation, and have already lost their control over the minds 
of the people. 

Tlie American people and Government are conmiitted to alliance with the 
Soviet Union for this war and for the postwar period. American patriots will 
not tolerate in public life any expression that runs counter to this will of the 
people. This is being demonstrated more and more every day in a thousand dif- 
ferent ways. The Soviet-American alliance has been confirmed in the hearts 
and minds of the American masses. ( )n November 7 it will be the entire Nation 
whic-h celebrates the twenty-fiftli anniversary of the rise of the Soviet Union, 
including the official leadership of the United States as well as the masses of 
the people. 

This does not mean that the United States has turned or is turning to socialism. 
Such an interpretation would be radically false. There is no intimation in the 
United States of a mass abandt»nment of its capitalist system of economy and 
society. Tliere is the general belief that if the United States rises to its 
tasks in this war, and fulfills its responsibilities in the cru.shing of Hitlerism, 
that it will go into tlie postwar period as a capitalist nation. 

But this also is no contradiction to a further fact, that the American jjeople 
are beginning to understand that the Socialist society of the Soviet Union is the 
source of its unparalleled achievements in the war which restored for the United 
Nations the perspective of victoi'y. Socialism, even though not generally accepted 
for the United States, is no Longer looked upon as something alien and hostile to 
the American way of life, which was the view which had long prevailed over the 
minds of the great majority of Americans. 

On the twenty-fifth birthday of the Soviet Union the American working class 
and people are more and more raising their voices to demand an immediate of- 
fensive on the western front against Hitlerism. Wendell Willkie expresses, on 
this issue, the sentiment of the American masses, who believes that President 
Roosevelt is fully committed to the same demand and are ready to strengthen his 
hand by all means, so that all restraining and hesitating influences can. finally be 
brushed aside. 

Americans want to fight. They want to fight in full coordination with the 
Red Army, which they respect and love. They want to fight now. They will 
never forgive those groups and individuals responsible for holding them back so 
long from the fight. Such is in truth the spirit of the great majority of Ameri- 
cans as we come to the histoi'ic date of November 7. 

For the American people the date November 7 takes its place alongside our own 
July 4, as part of the same forward movement of the human race. Just as Amer- 
icans have always jiffirmed the uiuversal significance of <nu- revolution of 1776 
Jiiid of George Washington, so now we have c(nne to recognize the universal 
vjilidity of November 7. the S<iviet Revolution of llt]7 and Joseph Stalin. 

In the fires of the conunon war against Hitlerism, in the blood of the best sons 
of both countries given to a common cause, in the gathering of the peoples of the 
world into the United Nations, in the final winning of victory through joint strug- 
gle, this American-Soviet friendship and alliance will be so fully sealed that it 


will be a Rivat fortress for tlu' coUoctiv*' sccnrily and jn-ofircss of all itooi>les in 
tlie juisfwar world. 

The TWINTYFIKIH ANNlvr.ltSAKY OK TIIK Sovii/i I'owicn 

(By V. J. Jerome) 

Pwenty-five years ago the Soviet State was founded. Today all progressive 
linnianily marks the even in tribute. 

Out of the t'xiioriencos burnt into their consciousness in this global war for 
the destruction of fascism, the peoples have come increasingly to recognize the 
nieaning of the Soviet Union's existence to their national freedom, to their demo- 
cratic attainments. The barriers of confusion, prejudice and hostility, built up 
for years by Soviet haters, are breaking down under the spring torrents of lib- 
erated adniiration and widening understanding for the Soviet people and its 
leaders. Day after day public utterances of leading Americans bespeak the deep- 
going solidarity of America's millions with our valiant and most ix)werful and 
most dei)endable ally : 

"Street by street, liouse by house, life for life, Russia fights for her existence 
and for world security against aggression," declares former Ambassador to the 
Soviet Uuiou Joseph E. Davies." "They are also fighting our fight when they are 
fighting Hitler. From Thermopylae to Vei-dun history records no spirit more 
indomitable, more heroic, than that of the Soviet Union, its leaders, its brave 
army, its luiconquei-able people." 

"The Catholic Youth r>rganizatioii is thrilled by the visit of Miss Lyudmila 
Pavlicheidco to Chicago at the invitation of our outstanding mayor," says Bishop 
Bernard J. Shell, director general of the Catholic Youth Organization. "She rep- 
resents a great people who are writing history by their heroic defense against a 
ruthless invader. May God bless them." 

"No man can leave Stalin's presence days without admiration for his de- 
votion to the cause of saving his people from the barbarous thrusts of Hitler's 
nicreiJess hordes." says Wendell Willkie on his departure from Moscow. 

They who in the past have blocked American-Soviet friendship do not conceal 
their alarm. Wendell Willkie's declarations extolling the Soviet Union and 
calling for a second front have aroused the fury and hatred of the defeatist press. 
The resentment is not limited to the defeatists. The New York Times seems to be 
disturbed by the fact that "almost every observer sent into Russia," the Presi- 
dent's envoy included, "sends back messages which are almost an echo of the 
Russian call for help." And the Times offers its analysis : 

"We do think they have come into the field of a vast emotion. Out of the depths 
of the Russian natiire there has sprung something of awe-inspiring splendor. We 
think this is greater than communism. We have a right to hope that it may after 
this war liberalize and spirtualize communism's hard outlines."^ 

The Times is correct in siieaking of awe-inspiring splendor, of the vast emotion 
that impels the Soviet people to deeds of heroism which are the glory of humanity. 
But why, we have the right to ask, has the nature of this splendor, its vei-y possi- 
bility, been withheld from our Nation for 25 years — yes, by the very .journal that 
.sports the motto "All the news that's fit to print"? And how shall those answer 
who have systematically sought to conceal the source of this heroic emotion in 
the S(jviet man, woman, and child? How shall they answer who have sought to 
defame and belittle that source? 

Out of the depths of the Russian nature? Shades of the Dostoievskian soul and 
fumes of the confessions gases ! The years have not pas.sed in such number that we 
cannot still hear that same camp of ps.vchologists exclaiming that the economic 
and cultural backwardness of Russia under the tsars expressed the peculiarities 
of the "Russian soul" : Not in the Russian nature rich in the centuries-old heritage 
of struggle against ojjpression. not in the nature that brought forth the vanguard 
Ru.ssiau proletariat, but in the sloth of Obloniovisni " they saw the "soul" of 
Russia; in the phosphorescence of decay they beheld that soul's splendor — it sur- 
vived for them among the tsarist emigres of Paris and Mukden. Since a certain 
day in late 1017. however, they have not otherwise found the "Russian nature" 
sopalatable: luiw they revert to it in order to weaken the sununons of America's 
goodwill emissary to common fighting action. 

lEflltorial of RfptomhtT 29, 1942. 

* The allusion is to the character Ohlomnv. who. in Gonoharov's famous nf>vel by that 
name, typifies the social inertia, stagnation, and inrtifferentisni of nineteenth-century Russia. 


There is a "Kussiiiii nature" out of which has sprung awe-inspiring splendor. 
That nature is no mystical abstraction. It inheres in concrete reality — the eco- 
nomic, poltical and social status of the Soviet people. It is the nature of a people 
that has transformed its nature. It is the nature of a people that has made the 
leap from Oblomovism to Stakhanovism. It is the nature of that people of whom 
Wendell Willkje said : "Here in Russia you realize the real meaning of the phrase 
'This is a people's war.'" It is the nature that may attain like splendor in all 
peoples when their inherent greatness is released by great historic aims. 

The nature of tiie Soviet Union, its essence and its meaning to the world, 
must be more fully understood, to make the U. S.-U. S. S. R. coalition stronger 
and more effective, to hasten the second front for a full victory of the coalition. 
The interests of the common struggle of the United Nations and the deepening of 
American-Soviet amity require the fullest clarity up(m the bases of our Soviet 
ally's lieroic stand. The i>eop]e must he armed against the veiled and open 
attempts to undermine America's vital relatitmship with the Soviet Union. The 
very launcliing of the second front — supi-eme urgency of the hour — and the ship- 
ping of vital war necessities to our Soviet ally are impeded by the Muniehite 
propaganda of confusion and slander that is a danger to America and to the 
United Nations. The morale of our armed forces and of our civilian popnlatitni 
depends on the speed and effectiveness with which we crush the traders in 
treason who, to distract attention from their organized plottings of a negotiated 
Hitler "peace," publish and broadcast such fabrications as that the "Russian 
enigma" makes us uncertain of the Soviet Union's course. 

The cause of Allied unity demands the destructicm of this tissue of falsehoods 
spun by the lose-the-war camp. The ])eople nmst be grounded in the under- 
standing that the Soviet Union is no "enigma," but that its course of action is 
straiglit, unfailing, and clear-ringing as the fire from Lyudmila Pavlichenko's gun. 
There is still lacking a wide-scale grasp of the causes that make the Soviet 
Union, its fighting forces, its people, and its leadership the ob.iect of world ac- 
claim. It is clear to all tliat the Soviet Union is. and for 16 fateful monriis 
has been, the mainstay of the United Nations' fighting strength ; that "the hopes 
of civilization," in the words of General MacArthur, "rest on the worthy banners 
of tlie courageous Russian Army." Not yet understood broadly is how this has 
been made possible. 

The role of the Soviet Union in tliis war foi- national liberation is not an 
accidental, unexplainable iihenomenon ; it is the wartime expression of the fun- 
damental role of the Socialist state in history. 

The Soviet Union displays the fighting mettle that has earned for it world 
wonder because, founded on the principles of Socialist democracy, it is the most 
con.sistent and resolute fighter against fascism ; because the scientific bases on 
which its social system was built from the first are diametrically opposite and 
irrecocilably hostile to everytliing that fascism represents. 

When, in the Communist Manifesto, close to a century ago, Marx and Engels 
foresaw that its historic* course would lead the working class to assume "the 
position of ruling class," they predicated working class rule upon the basic 
task: "to win tlie battle of democracy." And when the proletariat of Russia 
raised itself to the position of ruling class. Lenin declared: "The Soviets are 
the higher form of democracy ; morever, they are the beginning of the Socialist 
form of democracy." 

The surge of the workers' state into existence brought to the laboring masses 
and all the oppressed everywhere the joyous realization that in a sixth of the 
world the age-old aspirations of the "wretched of the earth" were now to be 
fulfilled. The revolutionary struggles of the modern working class, repres.sed 
in Idood in the Parisian .Tune days of 1.S4S. defeated on tlie barricades of the 
Communard "heaven stormers," crushed in the Russia of irMl.5, now had lirouglit 
a proletariat to power. Tlie freedom for which Spartacus led the embattled 
slave army in antiquity, for which Wat Tsier and Thomas IMiinzer led the serfs 
in sweeping struggle: the freedom that the Magna Carta initiated, that tiie 
great Frencli Revolution proclaimed in tlie rights of man, that the American 
Revolution inscribed in words of fire on its battle banner.s — was now to be ad- 
vanced to the highest stage of realization. 

It is a tribute to the magnitude of the social transformation effected by the 
October revolution that the voices — and not only the voices — of all who stood in 
the way of progress were raised against the Soviet power. All too well known 
are the vilifications and malicious distortions, running the gamut from "national- 
ization of women" to "totalitarianism." One charge rose from them all : Soviet 
power, the dictatorship of the working class, means the end of all democracy. 


Thus, even today, in the yoar of tho Soviet pooplo's jilovious dPinofratic aiiogoo, 
the year of SevastoiKil aiul Stalinj^riul, an "authority" on world affairs can 
deliver himself of this cynicism : 

"From 1}>21 onwards [Russia's I example was followed hy coinitry after coimtry 
which combined n^bi'llion atraiiist- the Versailles seltlement with I'ejectioii of 
demncracy. sometimes payiufr lii>-service to democracy, as the Russians had done, 
hy purporting to set up a new and more perfect form of it." " 

One might expect that the les.sons of the years, if they could not enlighten, 
would at least shame the .slanderers. But th(> cheeks of falsehood are fashioned 
of brass. 

Russia's example was the example of supreme democracy. The workers' state 
could not. by its i>ssential nature, adopt a course ()ther than the realization of 
the fullest democracy. The working class in power, the working class allied 
with the masses of the peasantry, means the rule of the vast majority. 

A workers' state requires an organized form that corresponds to its political 
es.^^ence and implements its historic tasks. That form — evolved from the experi- 
ences of the Pai'is Comnnme and the revolutions of 1905 and February 1917, i)ro- 
posed and elaborated by Lenin, and instituted under his leadership — was Soviet 

Lenin tauglit that in the course of winning the battle of democracy the Soviets, 
as the new state apparatus, are, in the first place, defending the gains of the revo- 
lution, through having set up an armed force of workers and peasants — a force 
that "is not divorced from the people as was the old standing army, but is fused 
with the people in the closest possible fashion."' Secondly, the Soviets are "a 
bond with the masses" — the deep and indissoluble connection of the workers' 
state with the laboring people of city and village. Thirdly, the superior demo- 
cratic character of the Soviets is reflected in the fact that their members are 
elected and subject to unhampered review and recall in accord with the popvilar 
will. Fourthly, their strong ties with the most varied occupations facilitate the 
introduction of reforms, free from bureaucratic formalism. Fifthly, their organ- 
izational form makes it possible for the vanguard of the laboring people, the 
I)roletariat. to extend leadership and political training to the vast pea.sant masses 
that previoTisly "stood remote from political life and from history." Finally, in 
that they act both as legislative and executive bodies, as well as through the 
general flexibility of their form, they combine "the advantages of parliamentarism 
with the advantages of immediate and direct democracy." Summed up. the 
function of the workers' state and its Soviet form has been, from the beginning, 
as set forth in Lenin's Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, ''to draw 
[the masses of the people! into independent pf)litical life, to edticate them politi- 
cally by their own experience," thereby "teaching the whole of the population the 
art of administration." * 

The Soviet foi-in of the workers' state — in realizing the objectives set foi-th bv 
L'^nin — has enabled the peoyHe to attain that unity of purpose and political 
initiative which alone explain their unshakable morale. It is the democratic 
basis of Soviet power which has made possible, the firm, granite-like national 
unity of the Soviet jteople and the indestructible ties with its Government and 
Red Army, such as have never been beheld. 

The task of the workers' state to establish total democracy would have re- 
mained unachieved had the requisite economic foundation not been laid. Scien- 
tific communism is distinguish from utopianism in that it is enabled by the de- 
veloping historical conditions, not only to project the consummate democracy, 
but to chart the course for realizing that democracy through the establishment 
of its material basis. 

"When, in 1926. toward the close of the period of economic restoration, effected 
by the new economic policy, the land of the Soviets, led by the Bolshevik Party, 
undertook its great task of socialist construction, its enemies laughed. Some of 
its "friends" were skeptical at the "experiment." Bourgeois economic and 
sociological experts derided the .^>-year plan and proved statistically, psycho- 
logically, biologically, that it was doomed to failure because, the profit motive 
lacking, the workers had no incentive to fulfill the plan. Prophets of doom arose 
on all sides. The words of those oracles of ill omen have now found their place 
with the a.shes of history. The anti-Tveninists within the party presented as 
insuperable the economic and technical backwardness of the country and raised 
the cry that the alliance of the working class and the peasantry would be dis- 

^CowMril. HallPtt Carr. Conrlitions of Pf>aof. ^raf>nlilla^. Npw York. 1942. p iv 

■» Thp flistingiiishinff fharartoristios of thp Rovipts wprp rlas^icallv prpsontofl by Lpiiin in 

his famous artiolp "Can the P.olshoviks rptain state power?" written on the eve of the 

impending proletarian revohition. 


rupted ; they clamorously denied the possibility of building socialism in the 
single Soviet state and set about organizing their ideological denial into prac- 
tical betrayal. Defeated, repudiated, and eliminated are the Trotsky-Bukharin 
camp of wreckers and traitors. The victorious advance of socialist construc- 
tion reared the Soviet Union into a fortress of strength for the defense of world 
democracy. Without the achievement of socialist industralization and of col- 
lectivization in agriculture, climaxed by the great 5-year plans. Hitler would 
today be the conqueror of the Soviet Union. Without the victory of the Stalinist 
party line, Britain and America would today be doomed lands at the mercy of 

In 1925, before the 5-year plans, Soviet industry was still much inferior in 
output and equipment to the industries of the leading capitalist countries ; the 
economy of the U. S. S. R. was still a backward, predominantly agricultural 
economy. This meant that the workers" state was dependent on the hostile cap- 
italist world for machinery, industrial mateiMals, and many vital manufactured 
goods, including even the weapons of defense. 

The socialist industrialization of the U. S. S. R., on which depended the suc- 
cess of socialism and the defense of the workers' state, thus became the foremost 
task facing the Soviet people. The first partial goal, which was set in 1929. was 
the adoption of the first 5-year plan (first projected by the party in 1927) whicli 
called for the modernization and expansion of industry, with special emphasis 
on two key industries: machine-building and heavy industry (mining, smelting, 
metal stock producing and heavy fabricating). In the 4 years and 3 months 
which sufiiced to fulfill the plan, industrial output approximately doubled. The 
second 5-year plan, fulfilled in 1937, completed tlie reconstruction of the national 
economy on modern technical lines, doul)le(l once again the volume of industrial 
production, and in particular achieved the mechanization of agriculture. It 
achieved its main historical task — the elimination of the remnants of the ex])loit- 
ing classes. 

The great plans, !)esides raising the material and cultural standards of the 
Soviet people, insured the safety and future of the Soviet state. As events have 
emphatically demonstrated, the construction of the Soviet defenses was of cru- 
cial importance for all the anti-Fascist jteoples. Throughout the i>tM-iod of 
socialist construction, the greatest emphasis was placed, not only on building 
for the Red Army and Navy a great fighting machine, but on developing all 
industry witli a view to rapid conversion, transplantation, and regional self- 
.suSiciency under the exigencies of national defense. 

In the Constitution of the U. S. S. R., there is now inscribed the living reality 
that socialist economy is the basis upon which the Soviet Union is established : 


"The socialist system of economy and socialist ownership of the means and 
instruments of prodtiction, firmly established as a result of the abolition of the 
capitalist system of economy, the abrogation of private ownership of the means 
and instruments of production and the abolition of the exploitation of man by 
man, constitute the economic foundation of the U. S. S. R."' 

Upon this socialist economic bedi'ock rises the structure of socialist democracy. 

"The right to work," declares the section of fundamental rights and duties of 
citizens, "is insured by the socialist organization of the national economy, the 
steady growth of the productive forces of Soviet society, the elimination uf the 
possi))ility of economic cri.^es. and the abolition of unemployment." 

The constitution accords all citizens "the i-ight to rest and leisure." 

"The right to rest and leisure is insured liy the reduction of the working day 
to 7 hours for the overwhelming majority of the workers, the institution of an- 
nual vacations with full jtay for work(>rs and em])loyees and the provision of 
a wide network of sanatoria, rest homes, and clubs for the acconnnodation of 
the working ])eoi)]e." 

The constitution accords all citizens "the right to maintenance in old age and 
also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work." 

"This right is insured by the extensive development of social insurance of 
workers and employees at state expense, free medical service for the working 
people and the provision of a wide network of healtli resorts for the use of the 
working people." 

The constitution insures for all citizens "freedom of religious worship and 
freedom of ant i religious propaganda." 

The constitution guarantees by law to all citizens freedom of .speech, press^ 
assembly, and street demonstrations. 


"These ci\il lijihts are insured by placing at the disposal of tlie working people 
and their organizations priming presses, stocks of paper, jiublic buildings, tin; 
streets, coninuiuications facilities, and otlier material requisites for the exercise 
of these rights." 

The "right to unite in public organizations — trade-unions, cooi)erative associa- 
tions," and otlier organizations is insured to all citizens: 

"In conformity with the interests of tlie working people, and in order to 
develop tlie organizational initiative and political activity of tlie masses of the 

In regard to the rights of woman — "the chained Andromeda of modern so- 
ciety," De Leon called her — the constitution states: 

"Women in the U. S. S. R. are accorded ecpial rights with men in all spheres of 
economic, state, cultural, social and political life. 

"The possibility of exercising these rights is insured to women by granting 
them an equal right with men to work, payment for work, rest and leisure, 
social insurance and education, and by state protwtion of the interests of mother 
and child, prematernity and maternity leave with full pay. and the provision of 
a wide network of maternity homes, nurseries, and kindergartens." 

In the basic respect of rendering the constituti(»nal rights of the Soviet citizens, 
in the economic, political, and social spheres, insured rights — not merely rights 
formally recorded, but rights whose exercise is made actually possible and is 
legally guaranteed^socialist democracy transcends every form of democracy 
society has known. 

The socialist democracy flourishes upon the soil of the great community of in- 
terests that unites the Soviet iieople in an indestructible unity. 

The new working class of the U. S. S. R. (no longer, as Stalin pointed out, a 
proletariat, a ter mconnoting a class bereft of the means of production and hence 
exploited), is now, in conjunction with the entire people, the master of the 
country's re.sources and productive implements, for whom labor has been elevated 
to "a matter of honor, a matter of i^lory, a matter of valor and heroism." This 
new working class, with ranks unified, asserting its initiative and leadership 
through its free and democratic trade-unions and other organizations, its politi- 
cally most conscious members united with other advanced sections of the working 
people in the vanguard Bolshevik I'arty, and knowing it.self to be part of the 
world working class, is achieving miracles on the production front and is manning 
the guns on the Soviet sector of the United Nations' battle front. 

And it is this working class — to the shame of American labor, it must be said — 
which has been found wanting by the majority of the American Federation of 
Labor leadership. It is this vanguard section of the world trade-union move- 
ment whom the Hutchesonion trade-union tyrants label "totalitarian." 

Well did Jack Tanner, fraternal delegate from the British Trade Union Con- 
gress to the recent A. F. of L. convention, answer all such blockers of coopera- 
tion among the trade-unions of the United Nations : 

"We are proud to be associated with that brave people through our trade- 
union organization, and if we are told that the character and spirit of their 
trade-unions is different from that of the British trade-unions. I can only 
reply that the character and spirit of the Soviet trade-unionist in the fight 
against Hitlerism are also somewhat different from what our own has been 
to date. * * * 

"To say that the trade-unions of the U. S. S. R. are nothing but appendages to 
the state machinery is to leave out of account the nature of the .state and whose 
interests its activities foster and serve. In (mr two countrie.s, we cannot pre- 
tend that it is the workers' interest which wil Itriumph in any issue, unless we 
put up a .strong and organized fight. But there is no evidence to supijort the 
idea that in the Soviet Union such a fight is necessary if the matter is one which 
concerns the well-being of the workers, and if it is not necessary, the organiza- 
tions which, in othei- countries and conditions, would conduct such fights, natur- 
ally as.sunie a different character and take on different activities."" 

The victory of socialism emancipated the village with the town. The back- 
ward, sfattered jieasant husbandry which was the noi'iii of the economy — until 
1930 predominantly agi-ai-ian — became transformed into lai'ge-scale, collective, 
socialist agriculture. With this deep-going revolution in tlie national ecf)nomy, 
"equivalent in its conserpience to the revolution of October 1917," the Soviet 
peasantry became transfoinied into a peasantry of a new type. The victory of 
the collective-fai'ui movement, aided materially, culturally and morally by the 
working clas.-; and the Soviet Government has freed the peasant from 

'The Worker, October 11, 1942. 


exploitation and from oppression by lancllords and usurtTs. The Constitution 
of the U. S. S. R. declares all collective farm enteii>rises, with their livestock and 
implements, as well as their products and buildings, to be the socialist property 
of the collective farms; it declares the land occupied by the collective farms 
to be secured to them free in perpetuity. The Soviet peasants have not only 
achieved a life of well-being; their life has become permeated with modern 
culture. From the ranks of the new peasantry have come forward leading, 
educated citizens in the various professions. And from the Soviet fields and 
villages have come millions of patriots, imbued with love for their fatherland, 
sworn to annihilate the fascist invader. The socialist patrioti-sm of the peas 
antry finds its nobles symbol in the man, who. l>orn the son of Bessarabian 
peasants, and at one time a farmhand, is now — Marshal Timishenko. 

Of that patriotism, Ralph Parker, Moscow correspondent of The New York 
Times, wrote early this year : 

"The peasants destroyed things because they were confident that the state 
would restore their means of livelihood. Socialism stands or falls by its capacity 
to provide work, and the Russian worker or peasant has come to expect that the 
state will take care of him. Indeed, there is a strong case to l)e made for the 
theory that only in socialist states is a scorched-earth policy possible on a com- 
plete scale. Certainly the collectivization of land facilitates the tragic and 
heroic acts of self-sacrifice that Premier Joseph Stalin ordered to weaken the 
foe." " 

The rise of the socialist democracy necessarily involved, side l)y side with the 
basic transformation in the national economy, a revolution in the sphere of cul- 
ture. "The October Revolution," declared Stalin, "is not only a revolution in the 
domain of economic and social-political relations; it is at the same time a revolu- 
tion in the minds, a revolution in the ideology, of the working class." The new 
society required the new man — ;>nd begot him. 

Socialist construction provided the material ba.sis and released the social forces 
for the cultural revolution. Socialist democracy means today, as current Soviet 
life magnificently demonstrates, the peoiile's democratic initiative and participa- 
tion in the development of their cultural resource^ and activities for strengthening 
the struggle for national liberation. 

The Soviet Constitution accords all citizens the right to education. 
"This right is ensured by universal compulsory elementary education ; by edu- 
cation, including higher education, being free of charge; by the system of state 
stipends for the overwhelming majority of students in the universities and 
colleges; by instruction in schools being conducted in the native language, and 
by the organization in the factories, state farms, machine and tractor stations 
and collective farms of free vocational, technical, and agronomic training for the 
working people." 

That this provision in the constitution has been made a I'eality is demonstrated 
by the unprecedented advance of culture in the Soviet Union. By the end of the 
second 5-year jjlan. illiteracy, which characterized TO i^ercent of the population in 
1913, bad decreased to less than 5 percent; the number of primary and secondary 
school pupils had increased from 8,(XH),G(X) to nearly 30,000.01K); the number of 
college and university students had grown to 550,000 — gj-eater by almost 25 per- 
cent than the combined total attendance in the corresponding institutions of Eng- 
land, France, Germany, Italy, and Jaiian; and the number of readers liad in- 
creased to such an extent that the books in the Soviet libraries amounted to 75 
for every 100 inhabitants. The Red Army, a vast school and cultui'al force in 
itself, had over 30,000,000 books in its libraries. The scientific, planned socialist 
economy, inaugurated through the zealous participation of the people, has built up 
a mass scientific attitude and has vastly stimulated and released the nation's 
cultural forces. From the 3,(MHI pi'ofessional scientists that prerevolutionary 
Russia counted, the number had risen at the time of the launching of the third 
5-year plan to 40,000. 

Out of the ranks of the liberated workers and peasants has come a new intelli- 
gentsia, working integrally with the people, drawing its inceutivi' and inspii-ation 
from the people and serving the people's cause. And of the old intelligentsia the 
best elements either identified themselves from the first with the October revolu- 
tion or, through their growing i-ealization of what socialism spells for culture and 
for themselves as cultural workers, have come over to the side of the socialist 

The cultm-e of the socialist .society is no facade of eidightenment to conceal a 
ho"g" • " dai kness. It is an edifice shining from foundation to spire with the 

« The New York Times, February 2, 1942. 


truth of 1T(H» in;in"s aohievomoiits. It is no lucM-archy of tln' elite, tlio experts, 
over a people bidden to remain in passivity. It is a life activity of a uiulied 
lieoplt' fashimiin,!;- its destiny eonsciously. 

The ilenuH-ratii- roots of the soeialist i-idtni'e and llie \ ilal uieainii.n- of culture 
for the socialist iH'ople are attested hy the tn^niendous role of the sciences and 
the arts in the ^reat struji-.u'lo of tlie Soviet Union for national liberation. Soviet 
cultural aclivilii's are not promoted as "a sleep and a lorKettinj:." Nor are they 
an artificial slinudus to the pojndar morale. The culture of socialist democi-acy 
speaks out of the people: it is their deei) will to victory creatinj? — ci-eating not 
only to celebrate the Red Army's and the mUion's heroic deeds, but also to utter 
criticism where criticism is due, to correct, to susigest, to urj^e, to acliieve. 

Striking is the instance of a recent play hy Alexander Korneichuk, The Front, 
pulilislied in Travada and scheduled for inunediate Nation-wide production. The 
Front, in pre.senting the heroic exploits of the Red Arniy and its leadership, lays 
bare, with ruthless criticism, shortcominjis in certain connnanders — ujilitary con- 
servatism ct)upled with self-complacenc.v — which have hindered the rout of the 
invaders and have been responsible for some of the defeats suffered by the Red 

"The play," a review in Pravda states, "sets every worker thinking, makes hira 
take a critical view of his shortcomings, and tires him with the striving steadily 
to improve his work. * * * The publication of Korneichuk's The Front is a 
sign of the great strength and vitality of the Red Army and of the Soviet state, 
for only an army which confidently faces the future, which is confident in victory, 
can disclose its own shortcoming.s so frankly and sharply in ordei- to eliminate 
them." • 

In the Soviet Union the search for truth is a moral and political obligation. 
Self-criticism is the oxygen of socialist democracy. The people's culture is ever 
self-examining, self-renewing, self-expanding. 

Tlie Soviet Union has solved the national question. This sentence epitomizes 
for the peoples of the world an achievement unequaled in the whole history of 
the struggle of nations for independent life and self-development. Proceeding 
from the simple truth enunciated by Marx that no nation oppressing another can 
be free, Lenin and Stalin fornmlat<'d the scientific program which led to the open- 
ing of the Czar's Bastille of nations and brought the freed peoples comprising a 
hundred and fifty nationalities into a voluntary fraternal union of equal republics, 
a socialist connnonwealth. 

In regard to the rights of the nations and peoples embraced in the Union of 
Soviet Sficialist Republics, the constitution pi'ovides : 

"Equality of rights of citizens of the U. S. S. R., irresi)ective of their nation- 
ality or race, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social, and jwlitical life, 
U an indefeasible law. 

"Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of, or, conversely, any establish- 
ment of direct or indirect privileges for, citizens on account of their race or 
nationality, as well as any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred 
and contempt, is punishable liy law." 

In that nmltinational union the anti-Fascist United Nations can behold the 
fullest fraternal cooperation among the varied great and small nationalities. 
They can see. in place of the policies of spoliation, obscurantism,' pogroms, and 
foicible "Russification"' carried on by Czarist imperialism among the oppressed 
non-Russian nationalities, the economic, political, and cultural regeneration of 
the nationalities which was effected by the Soviet Government. They can see the 
wholesome unit.v of nations risen in defense of the common fatherland, where no 
second-rank citizenship degrades any single people and weakens the fighting 
capacity of the entire land; where no discrimination is directed at a people of a 
darker skin, sapping the vitality of the all-national war effort; where no anti- 
Senutism brings the poison of Ilitlerism into the camp warring upon Hitler; 
where no colonies exist to become a stamping ground for Axis "liberation" dem- 
agogiiery. They can see the living reality of the declaration hy Stalin: 

"* * * The draft of the new^ (Vmstitution of the U. S. S. R. is * * * pro- 
foundly iuternationalistic. It proceeds fi-oni the proposition that ;ill nations and 
races have equal rights. It proceeds from the fact that neither diffei-ence in color 

' Tlif- Wnrkor. Oftoher 11. 1942. 

8 Rpvonliiij.' is this passasp from a confidontial roport siihmittpd to Xifliolns I l).v ttio ohipf 
of thp Fifth Gpndarmprip Corps "on thp condition of thp alipns inhal)iting thp Kazan 
Gubernia'" : "Experipnce of all tinips provps that it is easipr to rnlp an ignorant ppople 
than a people that has rpceived even the slijrhtest rtegree of education. * * * In ac- 
cordance with this prpcppt the authorities over the Chuvash people arc exerting every 
effort to keep them in ignorance." 


nor langiiage, cultural level, or level of political development, nor any other dif- 
ference between nations and races, can serve as grounds for justifying national 
inequality of rights. It proceeds from the proposition that all nations and races, 
irrespective of their past and present position, irrespective of their strength or 
weakness, should enjoy equal rights in all spheres of the economic, social, political, 
and cultural life of society." 

The profoundly democratic character of the Soviet Union marks also its 
foreign policy. The protection of the vital national interests of the U. S. S. R. 
has always coincided with the needs for national security on the part of all 
peoples. By its nonimperialist essence, the workers' state at all time safe- 
guarded its people and territory without plundering foreign lands or interfering 
in their domestic affairs. Notable in tliis connection is the Declaration of 
Rights of the I'eoples of Russia, by which the week-old Soviet Government, on 
November 10, 1917, accorded the nationalities the right to self-determination 
and separation. (When, a month and a half later, the Finnish Parliament 
declared Finland's independence, the Soviet Government, within 2 days (Janu- 
ary 2, 1918) extended its recognition.) Notable too is the Soviet Union's re- 
nunciation of tsarist Russia's traditional annexationist policies with i-egard to 
the Dardanelles and with regard to Port Arthur and Dairen. And in full keeping 
with its continuous policy of friendship for the Chinese people, the Soviet Union 
early renounced the tsarist policy with regard to China. Thus, in 1919, when 
the Red Army pursued the Kolchakist White Guards in the direction of the Far 
East, the Soviet Government issued a declaration to China by which it rejected 
all claims to the Boxer indemnity and other special privileges. In 1922, the 
S'oviet Union renounced all treaties of the tsarist government with China, declar- 
ing itself "willing to return to China without compensation all Chinese territory 
seized by the tsar." This declai-ation was embodied in the Soviet-Chinese treaty 
of May 31. 1924, by which China was for the first time accorded the status of 
a first-rank power. The principle actuating these steps has marked every 
alliance or pact into which the Soviet Government has entered. 

"We stand for the support of nations which are the victims of aggression and 
are fighting for the indeijendence of their connti-y." These words of Stalin, 
spoken in March 1939, at the Eighteenth Party Congress, have been abundantly 
corroborated by Soviet policy throughout the years. The assistance that the 
Soviet Union has contiiniously rendered, and is still rendering, to the Chinese 
Nation in its war of salvation, is a fa(;tor that will contribute vastly to bring 
victory to that heroic people. Writing in Liberty for December 21, 1940, Madame 
Chiang Kai-shek stated : 

"Intellectual honesty constrains me to point out that throughout the first 3 
years of resistance Soviet Russia extended to China, for the actual purchase of 
war materials and other necessities, credits s«'veral times larger in amount than 
the credits given by either Great Britain or America." 

Memorable are the unflagging efforts of the Soviet Union and its representative. 
Litvinov, at the League of Nations in behalf of invaded Ethiopia to bring about a 
complete blockade of Fa.scist Italy. 

When the democr;itic capitalist governments, abetted by Social-Democratic 
leaders, engaged in that accommodation to the Fascist invasion of Spain hypo- 
critically styled "nonintervention," the Soviet Union declared through its i-epre- 
sentative on the Nonintervention Committee, on October 7, 1936: 

"The Soviet Government cainiot consent to the conversion of the noninter- 
ference pact into a screen for concealing military assistance to the rebels against 
the legal government by some participants in the agreement." 

And the Soviet Government acted upon that declaration. It sent guns and 
planes to the Spanish democrats, who faced Hitler's and Mussolini's mechanized 
forces almost unai'med. Soviet technicians and instructors went to their aid. 
Soviet ships bronglU food to the blockaded Spanish people. Spain and the world 
will forever remember the stanch struggle of the Soviet Union on the side of 
the Spanish people. 

Dr. Kduard Benes, the former Czechoslovakian President, on arriving in the 
United States, revealed In an authorized interview with Erika Mann, published 
in the Chicago Daily News, on April 18, 1939. tliat the Soviet Union had stood 
ready to carry out its pledge of military assistance to Czechoslovakia even if 
France and Britain failed her. "Russia was faithful to the very last moment," 
the account of the interview quoted Dr. Benes as saying. 

These actions of support to weaker nations attacked by fascism were an 
integral part of the Soviet Union's magnificent fight for collective security. 

Today, as the United Nations look back amid the llanies of war to those crucial 
years, can they fail to see that had the npraised fist of the People's Front, not the 


bi-ibiiiir i>;iliii of ;ii)p(';is('niiMi(. bcrii jint fi)r\v;in1 ; Imd the (•(i\ins('ls of Moscow, iiof 
(if Miiiiirli. ht't'ii hot'dcd ; lind tlio't'ssor liccii qu;ii;iiit iiicd the liordcs of 
Ililirr would not now 1>«' riding rouyhshod oxtT flio bodios of luitlonsV 

Till' jinti-lIitltT alliiuict' today of Ilio Soviet Union. I'.i'itiiin. and tiu> I'nilcd 
Slatos at tilt* head of the I'nitod Nations is history's verdict of the correctness 
(»f the collective-security iiolicy which the Soviet I'nion ursred tli(> nations to 
adojit aiiiiinsl Fascist auuressiou. 

Lilvcwise. hisloi-y has already conlirnied the wisdom of the l". S. S. II. in si;in- 
in.c the Sitvit't-C.ermnn Non-Afi,i;ression Tact. Let those who still persist in 
rejiresentins;: that pact as a "skeleton in the closet" be rennnded of the facts: 

I'p to the last the Soviet Government endeavored to maintain the peace front 
of the democratic nations. The policies of the Miinichite camii hiid sabotaj^ed 
and utterly dismembered that froiil, and it l)t>canie manifest that iieace coulil 
no lonuer be preserved on the basis ol' collective secui-ity. The maiietivers of 
tlie reactionaries who were at the helm of the British, French, and Polish Gov- 
ernments W(M-e cynically directed at coming: to terms on another Munich basis 
with Hitler at the exiiense of the Soviet Union, at isolatinii' the Soviet Union 
.'Mid idun.nin.u her into a war of attrition with Hitler Germ;iiiy. The last sta.iie 
in tiie trasie re.iection of collective security was the Anslo-French-Soviet mili- 
tary discussions of tlie smnmer of 1R8!). in which every effort of the Soviet Union 
to implement the iieace front and to olitain workable joint snaranties of rolanrt 
asrainst Nazi aiiiiression was blocked. The Soviet Union adopted an independent 
policy and took the step which frustrated the desiiiiis of the imperi.-ilist in- 

As events have well shown, that nonaggression pact, far from being, as the 
enemies of the Soviet T^nion rushed to proclaim, a move of "capitulation" to 
Hitler, was based, as Stalin pointed out in his radio address of .July H. 1!»41, "on 
one indispensable condition, namely, that this jieace ti-eaty does not infringe 
either directly 'or indirectly on the territorial integrity, independence, and 
lionor of the peace-loving states." Far from being "inimical" to the interests 
of the anti-Hitler forces, it was. on the part of the Soviet Government, that 
master stroke which enabled the Soviet Union to strengthen its strategic posi- 
tion and to pi-epare its lighting power for the day of Hitler's on.«laught. to pre- 
pare that ix)\ver for the war. not only of its own national liberation, hut of 
England, America, and all the United Nations. 

During that entii-e i>eriod and up to the time when it was treacherously at- 
tacked, the Soviet Union pui'sued a policy designed to prevent the spread of 
the war ;ind to strengthen the democi-atic forces in struggle against fascism. 
It supported the national liberation struggle of the Yugoslav people and en- 
deavored to bring about an all-Balkan anti-Hitler coalition. It continued its 
aid to China. It liberated B.velorussia. western Ukraine. I'.essarabia and northern 
Bukovina from the toils of reaction and the imminent threat of Nazi enslave- 
ment. It suppoi'ted Uitbnania. I>atvia. and Estonia in their sti-uggle foi' 
national and social libei-ation : estal>lished mutual assistance pacts with these 
Baltic states marked out as points of attack against the Soviet Union: and on 
the basis of their plebiscitary request admitted the three new Soviet republics 
into the great family of free nations, the Union of Soviet Socialist Rep'ihlh-s. 
It frustrated and defeated the Xn/.i-Finnish intrigues and provocative attacks 
wliich were abetted by the Chambcrlaiii-r.onnet imperialist forces. The blow 
struck then the Finnish Fascists — the smashing of the redoubtable 
.Mannerheim line, the prottK-tion of the Soviet boi-der, and the safeguai-ding of 
Leningrad — was a blow stiMick in behalf of the United Xati(ms of today. 

I>ui-ing that entii-e jiei-iod the Soviet Union maintained vigilance on its own 
frontiers, strengthening its Red Army and its defenses against all contingencies. 
and standing as a great harrier to Hitlei-'s drive for engulfing the Balkans and 
the strategic Mid'Ue East, which woidd have meant disaster foi- Great Britain 
and the United Nations of today. By tlius immobilizimr a considerable ])art 
of the Nazi .-irmy. the Soviet Union contributed to holding back Ilitlei-'s in- 
vasion of England and his i)reparations for the att.-ick uixm the Americas. Hitler 
liim.self admitted in his proclamation of June 22. 1041. that it was the Soviet 
Union which had prevented him from conquering Britain : 

"While our soldiei-s from .May 1<t. "U'U. onward h:id been breaking the j ower 
of France and Britain in the west, the milit.-iry deployment on our 
eastern frontier was lieing continued to a more and more monacing I'xtent. 
From August ID-IO onwards I therefore considered it to be in the interests of the 
Reich no longer to i)"rmit oui' eastern pi-ovinces t<i remain unprotected in the 
face of this tremendous concentration of P.olshevik divisions. Thus came about 


the result iiitendod by the British niul Russian eooperation — namely, the tying 
up of such powerful German forces in the east tliat the radical conclusion of the 
war in the west, particularly as regards aircraft, could no longer be vouched for 
by the Genua n High Command." 

What a travesty on history is therefore the statement in a column of the 
New Yoi-k Times (September 20. 1IH2) : "Britain saved hereself in T.)4() without 
Kussian aid, without important American aid. Britain saved herself when she 
stood alone." And what more litting comment is needed on the contribution of 
every such statement to the cause of the Ignited Nations than the fact that that 
very column is now being circulated in thousands of broadsides by the Fascist 
Christian Front? 

On June 22. 11)41, the Soviet Union took up arms against the Nazi invader. 

On July 3 Stalin .spoke to the world : 

"Our war for the freedom of our country will merge with the struggle of the 
peoples of Furope and America for their independence, for dem(»cratic liberties. 

"It will be a united front of peoples standing for fi'eedom and against enslave- 
ment and threats of enslavement by Hitler's Fascist armies." 

A united front of peoples ! 

Tlie war of the peoples against Hitlerism has pi'oclaimed collective security 
as its rallying slogan! The struggles of the nations for survival have merged — 
into one war indivisible, one camp indivisible. 

The Atlantic, which once was vaunted by isolators as our ocean barricade, has 
become the symbol of a Charter of the embattled I'nited Nations — a Charter 
which nnist be made to extend to the Pacitic. The policies of the Munichmen to 
isolate and attack the Soviet Union have been transformed into the historic 
pacts and ngi-eements of Britain and the United States with the Soviet Union. 
In place of the unnatural division lietween the two great democracies — the 
United States and the U. S. S. R. — which the helpmates of Hitler long sought 
to foster, have arisen the natural friendship and the fighting .alliance of both 

This natural friendship has its basis in the innnediate and lasting conununity 
of interests of the two great democratic ijeoples — a truth expressed continut)Usly 
for years by Earl Browder. 

Today it is l)roadly and increasingly recognized that the deepest principles 
of freedom and democracy actuate the men, women, and children of the Soviet 
Union in their struggle to destroy the Fascist invader. A few miserable and 
distorted creatures, like Lady Astor and that aspirant to the role of an American 
Doriot, Norman Thomas, veTiomously attempt to deny this. Such denial does 
not get far with the soldiers and sailors in the American armed forces, who take 
their hats off to the Soviet Union. The makers of guns and tanks and planes, 
the workers in civilian defense, the wives and sweethearts of our soldiers and 
sailors — the people on our home front; these spoke through Wendell Willkie 
their confidence in the Soviet Union and its leader. Joseph Stalin, in the land 
wbei-e the people rmi the people's war : where the fifth colunui has been ex- 
tirpated in good season; where the Red .\rniy, the i)eople's army, fights with a 
morale based on the knowledge that for democracy to live, fascism must be ruth- 
lessly amiihilated. 

The example of the Soviet Union shows us that democracy gives the people the 
will to destroy those who would destroy it. 

Military campaigns, hailed by MacArtliur as "the greatest niilitni-y achieve- 
ment in all history" — heroism uni)arnlleled on the part, not only of a magnifi- 
cently trained ami politically enlightened army but of an entire people — these 
can be explained only by the fact that these people fight for the country which 
they collectively and democratically rule — "street by street, and house by house." 
Only democracy — deniocracy of a kind never known before in history — democ- 
racy rooted in the bedrock of conunon ownei-sbip of the country's resources and 
means of i)roduction — democracy spread over a bi'oad framework of popular 
participation in all phases of govei-nment — democracy back by the strength 
of free, eipial. and united nations — such deinoci-acy has been able to give to the 
Soviet people the stamina and the statinv they show in this greatest war of all 
times. After 20 yeai's of Soviet power, the Russi.-m i)eo])le demonstrate with blow 
after blow, witli retreat only to attack again, that they cannot be l)eaten ; such a 
people will not go under; they are knit together in the vast indestructible morale 
of their Socialist democracy. 

I'.ut (lay by day the pric(> our Soviet ally is forced to pay through the non- 
realization of full Coalition strategy is rising. Our .ally's costs are our costs. His 
l)eril is oiu- peril. 


StiilitijrrMd. h;ii-(l ]>i-»'ss('(l dcftMidrr of tho citu's of (ItMnof^rjicy. cmUs to TiOiidoii. 
X«'\v York. \V:ishiiii;ton. Snii Frjiiicisco. Its (•nil stiniis tis to rcincniln'r tlit> 
words of GtMieral IM;u'Arthnr: 

"Tho history of failure in war can almost he suiiuikmI \\\) in two words: Too 
late. Too late in nnitinjr all possilde forces for resistance: Too late in standiiijj 
Avitli one's riMends." " 

Shall we h(> too late in standiiiir with onr friends? 

The course for America is cleai-. 

"We now hold the kt^ys to an adeuuate policy for winninj;- the war. These 
keys are: The American-Soviet-I>ritish facts and alliance — the hulwark of the 
Tnifed Nations and of world democracy: the Washington and Lmdon agree- 
ments to open the second front in Europe and to extend all-out aid to China. 
With the fultillment of these historic agreements, we will Ir.ive a guiding policy 
for victory." 

So spoke Earl Browder. general secretary of the Comnmnist Party and chief 
protagonist for the fullest development of Am(>rican-Soviet friendship. 

On this twenty-tifth ani\-ers;ir\ of the Soviet Union's founding, the American 
working class and people are eager to join the Soviet peojtle in Hghting comrade- 
ship on the western front for the decisive hlow against fascism and the com- 
plete triumph of the coalition of the democratic nations. 

OtTR Nation Discovers the Soviet Union 
(By Hans Berger) 

The discovery of America at the end of the fifteenth century altered the entire 
aspect of the world. Had we as a nation discovered the Soviet Union, as we are 
begiiming to do today, a (piarter of a century, or at least ^ years, or even ?> years 
ago, we should prohahly have a ditTeretit world than the one we now behold 
Today, one no longer need he a Conumuiist or a ''suspicious character" in order 
tt> appreciate this fact. Dorothy Thompson, in a speech delivered at Tangle- 
wood, Lenox. Mass., on August 2."), 1942, thus put into words what millions today 
ai'e thinking : 

"The greatest disservice was done to the democracies hy those who believed 
in the Fascist accounts of Kilssia. It was said that Russia had no armaments, 
no air force, that the Russian people were on the verge of revolt, that it would 
morally collapse in the Hrst weeks of war. 

"The greatest tragedy of this war, and one for which we have paid with un- 
limited sul'fei'iiig. and will contituie to pay with more sulTering, was the break- 
ing of the French-Russian alliance at Munich. It made this war certain and 
inevitable. In September 19;:^8, an aggressive Germany— had the European 
treaties not been abrogated at Munich — would have had what she could not face: 
a two-front war. From that day until now, it has been impossible to have a 
two-front wai' on (iermany." 

But with resix-ct to the Soviet Union, we as a nation, and especially those who 
were looked upon as our most authoritative spokesmen, were assuredly no 
Columbus. Toward the U. S. S. R. we failed to display that undaunted, forward- 
surging pioneer spirit with which our forefathers were so richly endowed. There 
was no good reason why we should not have recognized, years before we did, 
the historical role of the Soviet I'nion, as Vice President Wallace, for example, 
recognized it in his famous speech of June 1, 1942, a speech that has been passed 
over in dead silence by the greater part of the press: 

"The march of freedom of the past ISO years has been a long-drawn-out 
people's revolution. In this great revolution of the people, there were tlie Ameri- 
can Revolution of 1775, the French Revolution of 1792, the Latin-American 
revolutions of the Bolivarian er;i, the German Revolution of 1S4S, and the 
Russian Revolution of 1918. Each spoke for the conmion man in terms of blood 
on the battlefield. Some went to excess. But the significant thing is that the 
Ijeople g.roped their way to the light. More of them learned to think and work 

Yet it was not until th(> year 19:i;! that we finally made up our minds to estab- 
lish diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, and the President who was 
responsible for this was looked upon as taking a very hold step, indeed. Hoover 
and his kind to this day cannot forgive him for it. 

We Conununists have never hesitated about confessing our mistakes and .short- 
comings, when the occasion called for it. Is it not about time that all those 

* Thf Ofticcrs" Guide, 9th I'dition. .Tiily l!t42 : The Military Service Publishing Co., HarrLs- 
buriL', Pa. 


who did so iiiiich to create a misunderstanding of the Soviet Union were giving a 
little self-analysis to the matter? What a sorry role was played by so many 
of our scholars and scientists, by so large a part of our press, our literature, our 
radio, our motion pictures, our political parties, by so many trade-union leaders, 
churches, schools, and universities with resiject to the U. S. S. R. during all these 
25 years. 

The Assistant Secretary of War for Air. Robert A. Lovett, at a meeting of the 
I^ankei's' Club — at which, incidentally, he met with warm applause — thus formu- 
lated in sarcastic terms the ignorance which our countiy has displayed in the psist 
with reference to the Soviet Union : 

"Two American officers in their official report said that 'from observation of 
the work of tlie Russian mechanics one could conclude that in certain respects 
they surpassed American crews in their mechanical intuition. Their ability to 
repair any and all difficulties was phenomenal.' 

"No doubt the information that those officers had on Russia came from those- 
outrageous old geographies we studied in the sixth grade, you remember, under 
the heading of 'Characteristics of the inhabitants.' About the middle of the 
page opposite the map the comments on Russia were about as follows : "The 
Russians are a people largely given to agricultural pursuits. In winter the 
country is covered with snow and a type of sled, called the troika, is a common 
mode of travel.' Equipped with such pearls of knowledge, it is little wonder 
we were ripe for surprise."' 

It was not. however, merely a matter of ignorance with its: it was what we 
in this country thought we knew about the Soviet Union : it was our prejudices, 
our lack of understanding, our Philistinism that made the relations of our coun- 
try with our Russian Soviet ally of today so full of tragic and fatal mistakes, 
thereby contributing to the world sittiation with which we now find ourselves^ 
confronted. If, after this war is over, an academy should be founded with the 
object of investigating the causes of the war, these learned academicians will 
surely find themselves in ix)Ssession of a flood of literature of all sorts, a flood 
of propaganda of every conceivable form against the Soviet Union, of a kind that 
has been produced in our counttry for the past 25 years. This academy would 
indeed be in a position to compile an encyclopedia of lies, slanders, and falsifica- 
tions, and foi- material they need only turn to Hearst's lyiich-law press, to the 
distinguislied literary section of the New York Times, or they may avail them- 
selves of certain allegedly profound scientific treatises, hypocritical sermons, 
open incitations to pogroms, statements by attorneys general, warnings issued! 
b.v trade-union leaders against the establishment of relations with the Soviets, 
lurid romances a la Jan Valtin. etc.. etc. Can one. for example, realize that even 
today there are people who would try to make out that the Soviet Government is 
.settling, Jews in Biro-Bidjan in order that they may serve as cannon fodder in 
case of a Japanese attack? 

There was. of course, not the slightest reason for our being surprised at the 
Soviet I'nion. when in hundreds of books, newspaper ai'ticles. speeches — not by 
Communists, but by men and women of the most diverse shades of opinion — the 
development of the U. S. S. R. was to be found depicted in all its enormous diver- 
sity. The possibility of learning the truth about the Soviets, betimes, was all 
the time at hand, but the great majority of our peojjle wei-e not in a position to 
grasp it. For in this democracy of ours, in which, unfortunately, big bus'uess and 
its ideologists so largely control public ojunion. by means of the press, the movies, 
the radio, and the like, about 9 out of 10 ijersons. more or less, were likely in 
mental darkness regarding our Soviet ally. That a country in which there is no 
private ))i-oi>'>rty in the means of pi'oduction should liave made such giant for- 
ward sti'ides and should display so high a degree of technical, moral, and cultural 
development, was something which our p(M>))le must not come io know. That the 
Soviet I'nion was a land constitntina' the bulwark of civilization and progress 
must similarly be kept from them. What obstacles we Communists encountei-ed 
when, in the interest of onr own country and the war for human freedom, we 
attempted to spread the tiMitli about the land of socinlism ; how strenuously we 
had to combat the campaign of lies, slandei-. and c.-ilumnics. We were in a posi- 
tion s'milar to that of the great abolitionist. William Lloyd Garrison, with re- 
gai"d t<t slavery. When a friend said to him. "You are too excited, yoxi are on 
fire." Garrison i-eplird. "I have need to be on fii-e. for T have icebergs around me 
to melt." 

'i'lie fire of war is beginning to molt our own national icebei-g at an nnpn^ce- 
d<'nted rate of s];eed. In the tire of war. in tb<' face of the heroic role that the 
Sftviet T^nioii is i)l:iying in the fight foi- freedom, our prejudices against the land 


of socinlisni :irt' h(>iii.ix coiistiiiu'd :is l)y tl:iiii(v T) is mti iiicoiitrovcrtiMe fact tliat 
the majority of our jn'oplo arc (h'('])ly (Iciiioci-at ic, docply antifascist, and tliat 
they want to see the wai' against Hit Ici- carried forward to a victorioiis conclu- 
sion; wlienee the admiration which they fet'I for their Soviet Uussian ally, their 
desire to understand the Soviet Union better. Even the <liica;ro Trii)une, the 
Daily News, the Hearst pi-ess and the like are couipelled. much afiJ'insl their will, 
to coutrilnUe to the st I'enjilhentinij; of tliis admiration for oui' Itnssian fiicnds and 
to iiuhlish facts that lead to a better nnd(>rstandinii. For they nmst daily brinji 
news of the Russian Keds' heroic stand. Kven they cannot withhold from their 
readers the epic battle of Stalingrad. They cannot lvee[) the jjeople from know- 
ing that the socialistic Soviet Union is the on«' power in the world u\) to now 
which has been able to halt the Nazi armies. 

The jtoor white in the South, chock full of prejudices that have been crammed 
intt) liim by the descendants of the slaveholders, the poor farmer in the .Middle 
West, the previously backward worker in a small inland town, even Mr. Bal>bitt 
himself — they have all been hearing now for To months of the heroic resistance of 
the people <'onceruing whom, foi" the |iast 12."i years, they had been accustomed to 
hear only the woi'st. All tiiese misinformed millions ai'e now engaged in drawing 
the correct conclusions for themselves, and in doing so display a hundred times 
more wisdom than do the gang of "scholarly" hacks who for so long now have 
heen sniping away at the Soviet Union. What ai'e these conclusions V The Soviet 
Kussians know what they are lighting for. These ai'e not those downtrodden 
Slavs, "languishing under Stalin's tyranny," these Red soldiers who would rather 
die than surrender, these embattled workers and peasants, women and children. 
And so they go on to reason in their own simple fashion : a country which can 
withstand so terrible an onslaught must have an outstanding militaiy and in- 
dustrial organization: it must have outstanding experts and leaders, with the 
confidenct^ tif the people behind them. A country whose population is made up of 
so many different nationalities, and which yet, amid, the flames of a terrible war, 
in spite of retreats and setbacks, has so few^ traitors in its midst — stich a country 
must have found the key to the brotherhood of nations. The great writer. Pearl 
Buck, has put these conclusions of our people into the following beautiful words: 

"The Russian people in this war for freedom are setting an example for all of 
us because they are fighting as a united people withotit prejudice of race. As 
an American, this means more for me than anything else." 

What a longing breathes from these words: a longing that we, the American 
people, might be able to heal our own form of the disease of racial prejudice, in 
the maimer of our Soviet all.v. 

Even the malicious attempt to bring up the (piestion of religion against the 
Soviet Union, and to make this serve as a barrier to American-Soviet friend- 
ship, has come to naught. It is by no accident that we hear the pi-ominent 
Catholic. Alfred E. Smith, making the statement: "The Russian Army and 
people are serving magnificently as the spearhead of our tight." 

It is no exjiggeration to assert that the attitude of oui- Nation towai'd the 
Soviet Union has changed, fundamentally. The knowledge of the Soviet T'nion 
that is possessed by a relatively small minority will more and more redound to the 
benefit ftf the vast majority of our people, and an alliance with the Soviets will 
no longer appear as something "criminal." but as a progressive step. The 
U. S. S. R. no longer appears as a mysterious Colossus, endeavoring day and 
Jiight to overthrow our democratic institutions. Today it is seen to be the best 
ally that we could have in this our war for national survival. Archibald Mac- 
Leish has put it this way: 

"It is time, finally, to say to those who would divide the Americans from the 
Russians and the Russians from the Americans because they diffei- in their 
institutions and in the concepts of their lives, that it is precisely because of this 
difference — precisely because of this open and public and admitted difference — 
that the union of the Russian and American peoples is a powerful weapon in 
this war and a triumphant symbol of the meaning of this struggle." 

The great majoi'ity of our jjeople ai'e beginning to realize that the Soviet 
T'nion is not fighting for "Red imperialist aims," as Hoover would have us 
helieve: that it is not even fighting foi- its own freedom alone, but for the 
freedom of all mankind. Harold L. Ickes, Secretary of the Interior, was speaking 
in the natne of the American people, when he declared: 

•The heroic resistance of the Russian peojde to tlie international bandits has 
aroused the admiration of the world. Our Russian allies are fighting success- 
fully not only for themselves but also for the rest of mankind. We must spare 


no effort to give them every aid and encouragement in tlieir epic struggle against 

And even though William Green, head of the American Federation of Labor, 
does not as yet clearly see the role of the Kussiau workers and the liussian 
trade unions, he nonetheless understands very well the meaning of American- 
Soviet friendship: 

"This is a people's war. The people of America and the Russian people are 
in the same boat. They will share their resources generously, just as they 
will share the glory of victory triumphantly." 

It was the very heart of our Nation speaking, when Senator (Taude I'epper's 
words rang out : 

"When free men hereafter, in a free world, linger ttpou the record of this con- 
vulsive era, no name will be more luminous than that of Russia. * * * 
As one looks back over the wreckage of the last deciide, one can now appreciate, 
however, what a Herculean effort Russia made to arouse the rest of the world 
against Hitler's accelerated machine." 

Our own people are beginning to realize, in spite of all the attempts that are 
still Iteing made to have it appear that the Soviet Union is a '-totalitarian 
dictatorship," that the people of the Soviet I'nion have forged for themselves a life 
that is worth lighting and dying for, and that it is this way of life wliich 
enables them to figlit the way they do against so formidable an adversary. How 
many lies and humbug tales have been strung together to make it appear that 
Stalin is a "bloodthirsty villain": yet today there are comparatively few Ameri- 
cans who do not have the deepest respect for Stalin's greatness, farsightedness, 
and iron will. 

Millions also are discovering today that the Soviet Union does not "destroy 
the family" as they had been told, but that it rather defends the family and con- 
fers upon" it social security. They are discovering that in all the realms of art 
and culture the Soviet Union has tremendous achievements to show, and that, 
in the domain of technological development, in spite of the fact that it has had 
only a quarter of a eentttry's exijerience, it is not far behind ourselves. Millions 
of our people are beginning to realize that these Reds have developed prodigious 
.skills, as was shown by more than one young tighter at Stalingrad. At the same 
time, they could not help noting that, even as the battle for Stalingrad w;is in 
progi-ess, an effort was afoot in oiu' own Congress to raise the cost of living for 
the American people. These are the kind of things that, as this war goes on, 
are not likely to be forgotten. 

It goes without saying that even today it is not made easy for some of our 
people to understaTid the "miracle" of the Soviet Union, as the Dean of Canter- 
bury, in his book, has described it in so wonderfully clear and simple a fashion. 
How ridiculous it w(rald seem to us, if Soviet journalists were to un<lertake to 
deny that we in this country have the highest degree of technological develop- 
ment and the most powerful industry in the world — all because the capitalist 
system still happens to exist with us. On the contrary, it is a well-known fact 
that the Soviet Union admires our technological achievements and has learned 
much from them, despite the fact that we live nnder a system of monopoly capi- 
talism. Still today we find not a few people — and not all of them in the ranks 
of the appeasens, by any means — who, having been forced to forget their old stu- 
pidities regarding the U. S. S. R., would now endeavor to trig them out in new 
garments. These gentlemen are to be lieard discussing in all seriousness the 
question ;is to whether the Russian people tight so valiantly because they have 
a socialist .system, or in spite of the fact that they have such a system. The rea- 
son for such discussions is clear: These gentlemen fear that our own people 
may come to have dangerous thoughts, to the effect that it takes a Socialist order 
of .society to i)roduce such a nation of heroes, along with the efficiency necessary 
to withistand so formidable an enemy. These gentlemen still sliuddei- at the 
thought that the Bolshevik Soviet I^nion is our fi-iend, and that it today stands 
in the forefront of the battle of humanity. One need not be a Comnuinist in 
order to clear up such speculations as these concerning the miracle of the Soviet 
Union, with its Russian, Ukraininii. .Tewish, Tnrkmenian. Rashkir. Kalnmk. and 
all its other n;iti(tnalities. Mr. R;ilph Barton Berry has given a complete and 
quite i-e!iiarkable answer to this kind of thinking, in a letter to the New York 
Times of July S, 1042 : 

"But the heart of the matter is our attitude toward connnunism itself. It is 
conunonly said that Russia has renonncod connnunism and reverted to nation- 
alism. That the present struggle has drawn upon the older and deei)er reserves 
of Russian jiatriotism and blurred the lines between Red and White is no 


doiibl inic. But it would be foolish iind (l:iiij;t'rous to (•o\uit uikiu tlio adop- 
tion of a oaiiitalistic democracy in Kussia. I( appears probable that the 
presetil luiity of Russia is ]ari;-ely the pi'edncl of her conununistic failh ; tiiat 
a military victory will conlirm tliat faith in the sentiment and ctinviclion of 
the Russian people. If we are to avoid wishlul thinking and avert a revival of 
old antipathies we nuist come to an uuderstandiufj; not with a Russia fashioned 
<ui our t>wn model but with a comnnniistic Ru^ssia. That is the other pier on 
which we must hope to build a bridji'e of ajireement." 

The attempt to deny the socialist character of the Soviet Union, the allemjit 
to explain its heroisiu. in spite of its socialist character, the attempt to predict 
a capitalistic future for it, means to resume once more the old war against the 
Soviet Utdon. In the llames of war, the iceberg of our prejudices is rapidly 
melting. This is an undeniable fact. On the other hand, nothing could be more 
dangerous than to assume that the reactionaries, the api)easers, the narrow- 
iiumlcd ones, and those who never learn anything, will not make use of every 
means and take advantage of every oppcu-tunity to halt and indlify this course 
of development, to sow the seeds of new hatreds and dissensions — in short, to 
bi'cathe new life into the old abandoned pre.iudices. This Ls particularly evident 
right now in connection with tlie (luestion of opening a secontl front. 

It is evident, also, in the of those who are ready to praise to death the 
Soviet Union. Beneath this is concealed their desire to tight the present war to 
the last Russian, along with a plethora of compliments and laudatory speeches. 
Such praise would have represented a brave gesture some years ago, but it comits 
for litth' at a time when Stalingrad is there to speak for itself. As soon as they 
find they can get no further along this line, the faces of these gentlemen are no 
longer wreathed in smiles of praise, and instead we hear from them a glacial 
laughter and cynical remarks. 

The Hearst press, the Chicago Tribune, the Daily News, and similar organs 
engage in the crudest efforts to make the people believe that the Soviet Union 
is trying to force the Allies into a '"suicidal action," by demanding the opening of 
a second front. 

The tempo and degree of stability of our friendship with the Soviet Union is 
bound to prove decisive for the outcome of this war for our own national exist- 
ence; it is bound to be a decisive factor in the shaping and development of the 
after-war world. That is why the fact that a vertiable revolution in the think- 
ing of our people on the subject of the Soviet Union is already being consum- 
mated, is of such tremendous importance. It is one of the arms of victory. But 
when we view the war as a whole, then we must at the same time realize that our 
Nation has not yet drawn the full and fitting conclusions from it all. For in this 
common war for survival, the indestructibility of our friendship with the USSR 
and victory itself will be assured only through con«non action — through conunon 
military action — through the fullest mutual collaboration on the part of the 
Soviet Union and ourselves. 

To speak the es.sential truth, we have not yet completely left the domain of 
word.s — fair and honorable words, it is ti'ue. words of admiration, words tiiat 
mark a tlioroughgoing transfoi'mation in oui' way of tliiidviiig — to pass over onto 
the plane of action. Our Nation has not yet attained those heights from which 
it may sweep away all Chamberlainism, all opposition, all obstacles, all wavering, 
to throw it.self, along with Britain and the Soviet Union, into a decisive straggle 
for the annihilation of mankind's archenemy. Our Nation must draw the 
practical conclusions from its own words. On the decisive question of the second 
front, there are still huge icebergs to be melted. The patriots of our land have 
enormous tasks ahead of them, and especially the working, the class whose 
patriotism is historic, in this great struggle for human freedom in which we 
are engaged. 

exhirit c 

The Glorious Vicxoriks of the Red Army 

(By Dmitri Manuilsky) 

The Soviet country, the Soviet people, and its Red Army are passing through 
stirring days. The significance of these historical days can be expres.sed in one 
word — "victory." It is not yet final victory. Much effort will still be needed 
by the Army and people to rout and destroy the enemy. 

This victory is being born in great battles. The .smashing of the enemy fortified 
belt, which the Germans considered impregnable, by the Red Army ; the liquidation 


of strong points whirh tlipy regarded as insuperable; the fording of rivers which 
they looked upon as impassable — all this is building up the victory. 

It is emerging from the close pursuit of the enemy troops who are fleeing from 
the danger of encirclement looming over them, from the hundreds of thousands 
of German corpses, from the enormous cemeteries of (Jerman tanks, planes and 
guns. This victory is being forged by millions of people, by the \yhole Soviet 

German Fascist propaganda is now trying to have the world believe that the 
German Army is allegedly "withdrawing according to plan" for the purpose of 
"shortening the front." Only a perfect idiot could believe tliat the surrender 
of the Orel base by the Germans, that base from which they intended to ad- 
vance on Moscow; that the retreat of the Germans from their fortified line at 
Taganrog; that the opening of the "Smolensk gateway" by them is in any way in 
keeping with the plans of the German command. 

I^ven to a baby it is obvious that once the front is shortened for the German 
Ai-my it is in like manner shortened for the Red Army t<io. However, it suffices 
to look at the map to see that the Germans have failed to effect any shortening 
of the front. Just the contrary. The winding line of the Dnieper where the 
Germans would have liked to retain a foothold, is if anything, lengthening the 

However, the very fact that such fraudulent talk about "withdrawing according 
to plan" is indulged in speaks of the existence of panic in German Fascist circles. 
On July 5 of this year the German command launched an offensive»in the Orel 
and Belgorod directions which according t(t its words was to decide the outcome 
of the war. 

Concentrating 17 tank, 3 motorized, and 18 infantry divisions on 2 small sectors, 
the German conunand hoped by concentric blows from north and south to pierce 
the Soviet defense and encircle and destroy the Soviet troo^^s situated on the 
arc of the Kursk salient. The Kursk arc was defended among other Red Army 
units by those which had played a decisive role in the encirclement of the German 
Sixth .\rmy at Stalingrad. 

All the German war prisoners stated in one voice that intensive propaganda 
had been carried out among the Hitler troops on the need to place the Russian 
armies of the former Don front in "Kessel" in revenge for the defeat suffered by 
the Germans at Stalingrad. 

Tile mass annihilation of German mani»ower and equipment, unprecedented 
in any of the most viitlent battles of the present war, started in the very first 
days and hours of the German offensive. The greatest battle in history, as the 
German Fascist command called its Orel and Belgorod operation, buried forever 
the illusions harbored by the Germans that after their winter defeats they would 
succeed in mending matters in the summer of 1943. 

The German plan for a siunmer offensive utterly collapsed. On August 5. 
exactly 1 month after the German offensive was launched, tlie Red Army caijtured 
Orel and Belgorod, thus laying the basis for beginning the successful offensive 
operations wliich are still continuing. 

After losing Oi'el the German Fascist command firmly held on to its highly 
important center of resistance at Kharkov. On August 23 the troops of the 
steppe front, actively supported on their flanks by the troops of the Voronezh 
and southwestern fronts, in violent battles crushed the enemy resistance and 
captured Kliarkov by storm. 

The salvoes of the Kremlin guns heralding the glad tidings of the capture of 
Kharkov were heard in Kiev and Odessa, in ]Minsk and Vilno, in Tallinn and 
Kovno, in Riga and Kishinev. They were heard by tlie men of the southern front 
who were preparing an assault on the German fortifications on the Mius River, 
at the Taganrog fortifications, which the German command considered a mii'acle 
of engineering techni(pie and far sui)erior to the famous Maginot or Siegfried 

On August 30 the supreme high conunand of the Re<l .\rmy announced the 
glorious victory of the troops on the southern front who liad smashed the German 
Mius front. Kharkov and Taganrog to a considerable extent detei-mined the 
fate of the Donbas, which was liberated from (Jei'nian Fascist occujiation by 
September 8. Jus( a few days before this the front in the Smolensk direction 
was pierced and Yelnya was occupied by the Soviet troops. 

While the Red Army was clearing the Donbas the ti-oops of the central front 
began their heroic mai'ch into northern IHvi-aine, looming over the flanks of the 
German Fascist troops who were trying to entrench in tlie central and southern 


jiai'ts of tlio Uki-;iin(\ On Sci'tcinlxM- (> the troojis of tlio ccntrMl front occuj)i<Ml 
Koiiotop; iuul on yoplonibor it Biiklnnnch, ;in iniportjinl rnilwiiy jnnction, (•outer 
of enemy connnunications and docisivt' sti'onf; point >>( llio (ioinmn (lolVns<> in 
tlie Kiev direction. 

On Soptenihor 15 followed tho liliornt ion of Nozliin. Every day brought uew 
and out standing Rod Army victories. On Seideniber 1(1 the troops of the nortli 
("anrasian front in interaction with the ships and miits of the I'.lack Sea fleet, 
foUowinjr ."> (hiys of violent battles, stained possession of Novorossisk. Tliat same 
day the Soviet troops fordinu- the Kiver Desna captured Novf^orod-Seversky, and 
on September 17, Bryansk. 

On September lit. Red Army units smashed tlH> German fortified belt covering 
the so-called Smolensk gateway. Then followed Chernigov and I'oltava. On 
Sept«>mber '27> the troops of the westei-n front crossed the Dnieper and captured, 
by assault. Smolensk, wliich the (icrmans regarded as tlie key to their defense 
on the Soviet-German" front. The Red Army emerged on the bank of the l)neii)er. 
As a resiilt, the Red Army smashed the enemy front in a nundter of imiiortant 
directions and forded tlie rivers iMius. Seim, Desna, Vorslvla. So'/.li, and others. 

In a little under 2 months th(> Red Army advanced from its initial position ,314 
kilometers and more, liberating from tlie German invaders territory of more than 
3(M»,(t(l() square kilometers. 

The Red Army returned to the Black Sea fleet the naval port of Novoros.sisk, 
second in inip(U-taiice to Sevastopol, tlius creating the conditions for successful 
naval operations in the Black Sea. 

Economically the Red Army victories are of exceptional importance. The 
Red Army has given back to the couiiti-y the Donbas, the most important coal 
and industrial district of the country; it wrested from the claws of the German 
plunderers the most fertile section of the T'kraine. rich in grain and technical 
crops. The Red Army liberated from the German Fascist yoke tens of millions 
of Soviet people, tens of thousands of inhabited points, and hundreds of Russian 
and Ukrainian towns and regional centers. The Red Army entered the territory 
of Byelorussia. In its sweeping offensive operations the Red Army saved hun- 
dreds of thousands of Soviet people whom the German Fascist fiends were 
preparing to drive into slavery in Germany. 

In the absence of a second front in the west, the Red Army, by its successful 
operation.s, rendered inestimable service to the Soviet Union's allies, hastening 
Italy's withdrawing from the war and facilitating the landing of Allied troops on 
Italian teiTitory. 

Finally, the Red Army victories ai-e of immeasurable significance from the view- 
point of tbeir moral and political effect on the enemy's army. In the enemy 
camp the .successes of the Soviet troops are giving rise to feelings of despair and 
hopelessness and are affecting for the worse the already declining fighting 
capacity of the German Fascist soldiers. 


What are the reasons for the brilliant victories of the Red Ai'iuy? They are, 
above all, the biilliant strategy of the Red Army supreme high command; the 
foresight of its military plans to rout the enemy: the ability, not only to see 
through the enemy's designs but to upset them in good time; the ability to take 
advantage of the enemy's vulnerable spots, systematically to wear down the 
enemy and inflict a crushing blow on him at the most appropriate time, at the 
most suitable place, and thus impose our will on the foe. 

Tlie reasons for the successes of the Red Arm.v are to be found in the sjilendid 
qualities of the Red Army men ; in their fearlessness, endurance i)ower. and 
fervent patriotism : in the qualities with which they have become imbued through 
the centuries of Russian history. Th(> summer fighting against the Germans 
revealed the Red Army's ability to maneuver boldly and frustrate the stereotyped 
tactics of the Germans. 

In the summer battles the Soviet troops disjjlayed truly Suvorov swiftness, 
accomplishing long marches and suddenly appearing where the enemy least ex- 
pected them. They revealed unexampled cour.age and gi'eat skill in fordiuir river 
liarriers. At Novorossisk they showed theii- ability to combine blows from the 
ground with naval landing operations, which decided the fate of the Germans, 
not only in Novorossisk but also the fate of their l)i-idgeheiul fortificiiti(»n in the 

The summer battl(>s showed tlie world at largo that the Red Army has highly 
talented generals who are fully cai)ai)le of carrying out the brilliant iilans of 
the Red Army Suin-eme H'gh Command and of ruthlessly routing the vaunted 


German generals who in their self-couMence considered themselves experts in 
military matters. Finally, the summer battles showed that Soviet industry 
supplied the lied Army with up-to-date weapons in such (piantities as to insure 
the success of the oftensive and to cut down to a minimum Soviet losses. 

However, although the Red Army's successes are great it should not for a 
minute be forgotten that the Soviet people are face to face with a foul and cun- 
ning enemy. The peoples of the Soviet Union and the Red Army are fully justi- 
fied in holding the entire German Fascist army resiwnsible for all their des- 
picable and foul crimes. The justitiaide cry "Death to the German occupation- 
ists" is not only a call to retribution dictated by the feelings of justice inherent 
in every Soviet citizen. It is a wise measure of state and national defense 
against the imperialist adventurers, a measure which means the removal of the 
bandits and roltbers who have violated the standards of the human community. 

From this rise the tasks confronting all Red Army men and commanders — 
tirelessly to drive the enemy off Soviet soil, allowing him no chance to recover, 
to rest, or to entrench on river positions or other natural barriers. 

The Red Army troops must forestall the enemy, must break into the inhabited 
points and towns occupied by him before he has a chance to carry out his foul 
destructive work. 

Let the glorious victories of the Red Army still further extend the partisan 
struggle which is inflicting blows on the enemy from the rear. Let the exami)le 
of the heroic :Minsk partisans, who removed the executioner of the Byelorussian 
people — Wilhelm Kube — serve as an example to all the districts of the Soviet 
country still occupied by the enemy. 

Exhibit E 


(By Hans Berger) 

Mr. Max Lerner, in an article entitled "The Unpopular Front." in PM (^f 
March 28, criticized the Communist policies as Earl Browder developed them 
at the January meeting of the national committee of the Connnunist Party. 
Since that criticism I)rought into focus all liberal criticism of an apparently 
"left" character currently directed at the Communists, it merits discussion. 
Lerner's main argument against the policy presented by Browder are the 

"There are two premises in the new Communist Party line, as expounded 
authoritatively by Earl Browder in his interview given to PM's Harold Lavine, 
upon which everything turns. One is that the irorld'.s fate hinges on Riisxin's 
future and Russia's alone. The second is that American proffrcssires wust 
give 111) their home-front struf/ffle to fulfill the promise of American life, lest 
Wall Street fall out of the Tehran alliance. I consider the first a misconcep- 
tion, the second a betrayal." [My emphasis — H. B.] 

The misconception lies in Lerner's interpretation of Browder's position. 
Browder took as the starting point in his basic report, as well as in his inter- 
view, not the Soviet Union, but Tehran — that is, the agreement entered into 
by the leaders of our own country, Britain, and the Soviet Union for strengthen- 
ing the leading coalition in the United Nations, for hastening victory through 
establishing the timing and the scope of the western front, and for laying tlie 
basis for postwar reconstruction through the continued Anglo-Soviet-American 
collabt)ration "in the w^ar and in the peace that will follow." Browder's starting 
point was not the question : What kind of policy must we pursue in order to 
help the Soviet Union? His starting point was the question: How^ best can the 
national interests of the United States — the winning of the war, the main- 
tenance of future peace, and the furtherance of economic and social well-being — 
be promoted? 

If Lerner would attempt a serious analysis instead of indulging in general 
phrases, he could not deny that this is the central problem on wdiich the future 
of our Nation and of tlie world depends. P.rowd»'r explained in great detail that 
the significance of Tehran lies not only in the fact that it paves the way for 
effective nulitary cooperation (the second front) but in that it offers the 
perspective of jiostwar collaboration between the democratic capitalist powers 
and the Soviet Union. The peaceful coexistence and cooperation of the United 
States, the Soviet Union, and Britain following the defeat of Hitler Germany 
and her satellites is the prerequisite for obviating another World War. If, after 


th»' coininoi) victory dvor Hitler, corlaiii iiuiH'rliilisIir (.iicli's were to suetrod in 
tlit'ir :iiin of unlenshiiiji uiil>ri(llt'(l iiilcrimiu'riMlist rivalry, or of settiiif; the course 
«.f tlu" I'liilcd Stati's or Euiiland toward war atiaiiisl the Soviet riiioii, tiie world 
would head for a still more lerrilile war calastroiilie. in the course of which ultra- 
reaction would proceed to hlack out the democratic life of our Nation. Such a 
war would be prepared, as was the case in (Jerniauy, by systematic reaction, by 
ji systematic campai.un for stupefying and brutalizing the masses, by systematic 
suppression of the workinjj-class mov»>ment and of :ill liberal opinion. The 
American fascistic reactionaries, just as IlitliM- did, wotild support the most anti- 
democratic adventurist elements in other couiuries, would intervene directly and 
indirectly to crush all and generally progressive forces in other 
countries in order to obtain allies, gendarmes, and Quislings. American reaction, 
American Fa.scists would attempt to achieve with far more open means what 
English policy achieved between l'.>17 and IDIW, not without help on our part, 
and what was so "brilliantly successful" in ({ermaiiy. 

This is the basis on which Browder focuses the attention of America on 
"Tehran." as the core of every present and future policy affecting our Nation and 
the world. Hrowder does this as a Marxist, warning with ^Marxist farsighted- 
nes..< against the horrible possibility of a new World War, with the nKKst terrible 
consetiueuces for the life of the entire Nation and especially for the conditionr^ 
of the American working class and all liberals, including the Max Lernerfl. 
Browder. the Marxist, has never declared that Tehran automatically guarantees 
against the possibility of such a development. Just because "Tehran"' nuist be 
fonglit for. and maintained and developed in strtiggle against its opponents, just 
because reactionary pro-Fascist forces are attempting and will increasingly at- 
tempt to destroy the basis it has given us, Browder warned so explicitly against 
the anti-Tehran' perspectives and urged upon the Nation full luiderstanding ani 
wholehearted implementation of the wartime and peacetime policies of collabora- 
tion agreed upon at Tehran. 


Where is the misconception of which Lerner speaks? Without question, the 
Tehran agreement is also in the interest of the Soviet Union. It is of utmost 
importance to the Soviet T'nion, and equally so to the United States and Britain, 
to end this war as swiftly as possible in coalition warfare through the second 
front. It is of the utmost importance to the Soviet Union, and equally so to the 
American and British Nations, not to be drawn into a new World War and to 
prevent such a war. 

Nor is Tehran less in the interest of France and of the other peoples of Europe, 
whose liberation depends on the cooperation of the great powers, and whose 
postwar development would be in the greatest danger if American and English 
reactionaries attempted to make them gendarmes against the Soviet Union and 
other peoples. 

Browder's premise, therefore, does, not. as Lerner falsely interprets, make 
"Russia's future and Russia's alone" the pivot of all policy. That premise is the 
premise recognized by the President of the United States in conjunction with 
the leaders of Great Britain and the Soviet Union, who voiced the deep-going 
sentiment of the American, British, and Soviet i>eoples, as the only basis for 
lK)lijcy for the three great coalition powers on the road to victory and an enduring 
peace. When the German Comnnuiists declared that friendly relations to the 
Soviet Union were a life-and-death matter for the German Nation, they were 
charged by the German Max Lerners with considering the Soviet Union "pri- 
marily"' and "in opposition to" the intere.sts of the German Nation. 

Lerner declares he is for Tehran. But when Brow^der presents the full mean- 
ing of Tehran as the basis of every serious progressive policy, then Lerner talks 
about "misconception."" It behooves one in Lerner's position to accustom himself 
to thinking (piestions thnuigh to the end. Were he to discard the arrogance of 
superficiality, it might be possible foi' him to learn from the rommunists to be a 
consistent progressive. 

* *  * * * * * 

Lerner accuses Browder and the American Comnmnists of "betrayal." He 
assert.s that the Communists demand that the "American progressives give up 
their home-front struggle to fulfill the promise of American lif(>, lest Wall Street 
fall out of the Tehran alliance." Lerner writes : 

"What is lirou'drr'.t bai^ic fdllary is the hrJicf that the Americnn isolationists 
(uhI the react iotuirt/ primitives ran he appeased rather than theii must he tnas- 
terefl ; it is his belief that they can be lured into good behavior on foreign pf)licy 


if mily irr surrender to them on domefttic policy. This is to substitute the poh'- 
tics of hlaiKlishment and nianipnlation for the politics of a majority strengtli. To 
abandon the hoiiic-froiit atrufn/Ie thus is n bctraiml of the best American jiro- 
gressivc tradition. It is a betrayal of the Marxiaa tradition as well in its 
crucial principle — that men can, acting together, transform themselves by trans- 
forming their living conditions and their power structure. I know of vei-y 
few thinking American progressives who will not l)e surprised at the extent to 
which the Communists now depart from their basic principle." [My emphasis — 
H. B.] 

Lerner lias often expressed hi.s spiritual concern about our existence, and 
has let it be known that in his opinion it would be best if we disappeared. Lerner 
belongs to that group of liberals who have a troubled conscience concerning the 
Conununists. They fear to be branded as fellow-travelers, since that would 
create difficulties "for their whole uiaterial and social existence. They must 
therefore continuously still their conscience and better .iudgiuent with new argu- 
ments against the Conununists. They must continuously prove to the woi'ld and 
to themselves why they are not consistent. 

Wherein does this "betrayal" consist? Lerner does not make clear when this 
betrayal occun-ed. Does the beti-ayal consist perhaps in the fact that we sup- 
port the Roo.sevelt administration? That we aiv opposed to strikes in the war? 
That we oppose the raising of divisive issues that would weaken our Nation's 
fighting power and civilian morale? Ddos the betrayal perhaps consist in the 
fact that we are inflexibly determined to cari-y this policy through to victory? 
What other policy have Lerner aiid PM to ju-opose? 

Where do Browder and the American Comnuuiists "appease" the American 
"isolationists" and the "reactionary primitives"'? Don't the Conununists cai-ry 
on a consistent struggle against tlie defeatists and pro-Fascists who would hin- 
der the prosecution of the war, who put all possible obstacles in the path of the 
administration, who systematically attempt to disunite and demoralize the 
Nation? Don't the Comnmnists carry on a constant struggle against tre reac- 
tionary, pro-Fascist forces who want to undei-mine our relations with our Allies 
and smash tlie strength of the United Nations? We ask Leriiei- and I'M: "In 
what does the l)etrayal consist?" 

What other policy is a progressive one? If John L. Lewis, perhaps. Lerner's 
ideal? Is Lerner's ideal the Trotskyite camp, which defames this great war of 
national liberation as "imperialist"? Is Lerner's progressive ideal Norman 
Thomas, that Socialist helpmate of Ilitlerism who finds a dozen "progressive 
questions" a day, all of which have but one aim. to jjrove that the consistent prose- 
cution of the war is not in the interest of the American Nation? 

Browder condemned the First World War as an imperialist war. He went to 
jail for his just belief. Browder and the American Conununists. in common 
with all eidightened American patriots, know this war to be a war for national 
lilieration. They, therefore, draw all the conclusions that will lielp i)roseciUe 
this war vigorously. The American Conmuuiists would be traitors to the inter- 
ests of the American working class and of the Nation if they did not make speedy 
and decisive victory in the war the guide to all theii- ])olicies, to which all other 
questions nuist be subordinated. 

Hencf^. tlie Lcrners nmst be asked publicly: Wherein lies the betrayal by 
the Amei'icaji Comnuuiists in this war of liberation? And what, gentlemen, 
is your policy? 

Does Lerner accuse us of betrayal because we do not consider socialism the 
issue on the order of the day? We do not know to what degree Leiner and 
PM and the liberals of whom he speaks consider the Socialist revolution to be 
an issue on the order of the da.v. That is not stated very clearly either in the 
articles of Lerner, or in PM. And if they really do consider it an actual issue 
for our day. they have been singularly skillful in concealing from the Nation 
the task which they propose it undertake. 

Or is the charge of beti-aya! perhaps made on the assumiition that we do not 
regard the working class any longer as the most progressive <liiss in society. 
the class which, by its development, strength, and jiolitical maturation, qualifies 
itself ft>r functioning as a leading force in th(> Nation? But there are no Com- 
munists, thei-e have been none, and there will he none who ever doubted this 
basic thesis of M;irxism. On the contrary, our liberals, including Lerner, don't 
understand to this very day this unalterable principli> of Marxism — -despite their 
extensive libraries. 

Or is the accusation of betra.val leveled on the assumption that we have given 
up the fight for the development of tmr democracy, for full equality foi- the Xeiiro 


people, for wipins out tho poll-tax shaiiic. for s:^^t'^Ml;^^^nl>^ llu' (louioci-atic lib- 
erties so deaiiy won by the Anierlean peoph'V Can the Leriiers cite one instance 
from our prac-iiee or one sentence from our declarations that could substantiate 
such a charjjeV 

Or is the accusation of betrayal made on the assumption that we have proposed 
that the workers, the toilinsi farmers, the fireat masses of the Nation say 
"amen" to whatever the reactionary forces in the Nation decree in the way of 
taxes, wajies. prices. <^tc.? Lerner cannot deny that we carry on an euerjjetic 
s'ti'Ujigle ajiaiiist all depretlations on the livinj; standai-ds of the men and women 
on the production front and support all campaijins that undertake sucli action. 
In conductinii this policy of struggle, we make clear that under war conditions 
we are opposed to all such actions that would distnrb war production and interfere 
with the i)rostH'Ution of the war. That is why we have vigorously opposed Lewis 
and all advocates of strikes during the wai-. 

The I'resident in his animal message to Congress, in .Taiiuary. proposed an 
economic bill of rights, much clearer and more meaningful for victory and a 
progressive postwar development that anything proposed to date by liberals of 
the -Max Lerner type. It is a program of far-reaching reforms which can be 
carried out in the framework of American capitalism. We welcomed tliis pro- 
gram, as did millions of trade unionists and millions of Americans of the most 
varied strata and occupations. As Communists together with all labor and 
progressives, together with the American fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers 
in uniform, we support such a program which declares: 

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. 
We have accepted, .so to speak, a second bill of rights under which a new basis 
of security and prosperity can be established for all, regardless of station, race, 
or creed. 

'•Among these are: 

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms, 
or mines of the Nation ; 

"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recrea- 
tion ; 

"The right of every .farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will 
give hiiu and his family a decent living; 

"Tiie right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere 
of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at lu>me or 
abroad : 

"The right of every family to a decent home ; 

"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy 
good health ; 

"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, 
accident, and unemployment ; 

"The right to a good education ; 

"All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be 
prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals 
of human happiness and well-being." 

If. instead of re.sorting to general phrases, Lerner w<)uld present a bill of par- 
ticulars, he would di.scover that he has not the slightest grounds for accusing us 
of betrayal. If he endeavored to fornuilate concretely the needs of the American 
people, now and in the postwar world, he would find himself on the same plat- 
form with the great trade unions of our country, and also, whether it be to his 
liking or not. with us Communists. Only .so long as he stays in the hazy "higher 
regions" can he hurl lightning bolts at us — bolts that are cold, devoid of the fire 
of truth. 

Lerner rei)roaches Browder for "bis acceptance of monopoly control of the 
American econom.v on the ground of inevitability and banding the w'orld over to 
the desitoilment b.v the cartels." 

What does lirowder accept and what does he see as inevitable? 

Browder realizes that in its dominant sections American mono^xtly capital sup- 
I)orts the war. The American capitalists have helped, by and lai'ge, to iirodnce 
everything nec-es.sary for the war. In this historic hour for the American Nation, 
the decisive sections of American capitalism are alined with all the patriotic 
forces of all in the great national war of our coiuitry. This very signifi- 
cant fact, in contradistinction to the situation in those European countries where 
the decisive strata of the •bourgeoisie have brought national catastrojibe upon 
their peoples, taken together with the nonsocialist ideology of the ovei-wbt'liniiig 
mass of the American people, nmst be taken into consideration by every Marxist 


who wants to pursue a practical progressive ix)licy. What, therefore, is the issue, 
the inevitable issue, as it presents itself to every serious Marxist? 

Should one ascend to the "higher regions" a la Lerner, in splendid isolation 
from the actual present situation, howl meaningless phrases about the power of 
the monopolies? Or should one set himself to work with labor, with the people, 
toward the effective solution of the most urgent wartime and postwar prol)lems 
of the Nation? are not little problems unworthy of a liberal custodian of 
Mai-xism. They are the problems of winning the war and of preventing a terrible 
postwar crisis with possibly 10,000,000 or 15,00O,fH3O unemployed, and the most 
dangerous social and political consequences, nationally and internationally. 
What have the Max Lerners to offer toward the solution of these problems? 

Browder well put it : 

"* * * Today, to speak seriously of drastic curbs on monopoly capital, lead- 
ing toward the breaking of its power, and imposed uiwn monopoly capital against 
its will, is merely another form of proposing the immediate transition to social- 
ism — or else it is the Utopian trust-busting program of return to an earlier, pre- 
monopoly stage of capitalism. 

"National unity around a program to break the power of monopoly capital is 
possible only if and when the majority of the i^eople can be united for the iiisti- 
tution of socialism in the United States. 

"That time is not now, and certainly not in the 1944 elections.'" 

For the Max Lerners, who refuse to face this reality (not created by theCcmi- 
munists), the only perspective is darkness, hopelessness, and desperate charges 
of "betrayal." 

Earl Browder and the Communists do not see any reason for desperation. The 
American Communists consider it possible, even within the framework of Ameri- 
can capitalism, to avoid the Lernerian darkness." The precondition for objec- 
tive postwar reconstruction is an appreciation of the extent of the problems to 
be solved after victory and the cooperation of all strata of the population who 
are determined in their mutual interest to avoid a colossal crisis. 

Max Lerner appears outraged when Browder speaks of cooperation also with 
the patriotic sections of monopoly capital ; Max Lerner does not understand what 
cooperation means. Consequently, he accuses the Conununists of appeasing re- 
action. One can cooperate in various ways. Chamberlain cooperated with 
Hitler. The result was war and Fascist triumphs. The German Social-Demo- 
crats cooperated with Bruening in the great economic crisis. This cooperation 
consisted in i^ermitting the Bi-uening goveriunent to throw the full burden of the 
crisis onto the backs of the toilers. As a result, the Fascist offensive was the 
more successful. In cases the word "cooperation" was a synonym for 
capitulation, sacrifice of the interests of the working class and of the nation to 
reaction and fascism, with the well-known consequences. But Browder has not 
proposed cooperation in order that the burden of a terrible crisis might be placed 
on the people. On the contrary, he proposed cooperation through anti-Fascist 
national unity, precisely for guaranteeing the adoption of such measures that 
will avoid the crisis. 

Browder states to the class in control of American economy: The great masses 
of the American people are convinced tliat our rich and resourceful country can, 
by internal measures and through economic cooi>eration with other countries for 
achieving the Tehran objectives, avoid a postwar crisis and mass unemployment. 
To solve the postwar problems will not be a simple task. But they can be solved. 
If you wish to avoid crisis and disintegrating social conflicts, it is necessary that 
in conjunction with labor, farmei'S. and middle classes, you work for the adoi>- 
tion of sucli common policies, sui)p!eniente(l i)y governmental measures, that will 
solve the problems of the postwar world. 

It is a proposal to cooperate against unemployment, against crisis, against the 
danger of fascism and new imperialist adventures. It is the proposal to solve 
all the (liffi'ult socijil .-ind economic pi-oblenis of the postwar woi'ld in a way 
which will guai-antee the maximum of peaceful development. It is cooperation 
in the intei-ests of an economic bill of rights, not cooperation a la Chamberlain, 
or a social-democracy. 

But Max Lei-ner has still another argument against cooi>eration. The Com- 
munists are so weak that the "tough capitalists" will not cooperate with them 
at all. Of course, the American Communists are still too weak today to con- 

lEnrl Hrowdcr, Tolicran aiul .\morioa. Workors liihrary Pnlilisliors. p. 2:'. 
2 Wo would earnestly rt'conimcnd to Mi-. Lerner that he study the liiglily enlighteninR 
article by Gilbert Green in tlio Coniniunist for April. 


vinoe tonsrh Aiiiorican cnititnlists of tho n<'»><l for coojxM-jition. ThciM-forc, if 
this cooptM-ntion (IcpoiiiU'd on tlio Coniniuiiisls nloiio it WMHihl Ik' coiHU'inricd to 
failiiro. Cooperation anioiip: various classics, in their mutual interests, can only 
be successful, and not he transformed into l;il)or"s capitulation, when the woi-k- 
inji-class movement, on the basis of maximum unity and an undei-st.-indin^' of the 
whole situation, uses its strength to coopi'i'ate and to solve these urtjcnt i)r()h- 
lems with the organizations and representatives of the other classes. Therel'oi-e, 
at the very time that they establish the necessity for this cooi)eration, the Com- 
nunusts, as part of the labor movement, emphasize the necessity for labor unity, 
the stren.tftlieninip of trade-union organization and joint action. 

Where in all the.><e considerations, in these conclusions is there betrayal V Who 
can seriously assert that the development of such a iM)licy as Hrowder has out- 
lined makes it easier for reaction, for fascism, in Americ.-i oi- in other countries? 
On the contrary, it is precisely such a polic.v — the policy based on Tehran — 
which shows the working class, the broad of the people, the whole Nation, 
the sjivat liistoric course of achieving a speedy victm-y and of returnins to peace 
without a postwar crisis, without threat to national security, and of creating the 
preconditions for further social progress- 





3 9999 05442 1902