G. - All right, let us talk in the form of a supposition. What will you say?
R. - You yourself had drawn attention to the coincidence of opinions, which took place between us. We are not at the moment interested in the attack on the USSR, since the fall of Stalin would presuppose the destruction of Communism, the existence of which interests us despite the circumstance that it is formal, as that gives us the certainty that we shall succeed in taking it over and then converting it into real Communism. I think that I have given you the position at the moment quite accurately.
G. - Splendid, the solution ...
R. - First of all we must make sure that there would be no potential possibility of an attack by Hitler.
G. - If, as you confirm, it were "They" who made him Fuhrer, then they have power over him and he must obey them.
R. - Owing to the fact that I was in a hurry I did not express myself quite correctly and you did not understand me well.If it is true that "They" financed Hitler, then that does not mean that they disclosed to him their existence and their aims. The ambassador Warburg presented himself under a false name and Hitler did not even guess his race, he also lied regarding whose representative he was. He told him that he had been sent by the financial circles of Wall Street who were interested in financing the National-Socialist movement with the aim of creating a threat to France, whose governments pursue a financial policy which provokes a crisis in the USA.
G. - And Hitler believed it?
R. - We do not know. That was not so important, whether he did or did not believe our explanations; our aim was to provoke a war ..., and Hitler was war. Do you now understand?
G. - I understand. Consequently I do not see any other way of [551] stopping him as the creation of a coalition of the USSR with the democratic nations, which would be capable of frightening Hitler. I think he will not be able to attack simultaneously all the countries of the world. The most would be - each in turn.
R. - Does not a simpler solution come to your mind ..., I would say - a counter-revolutionary one?
G. - To avoid war against the USSR?
R. - Shorten the phrase by half ... and repeat with me 'avoid war" ... is that not an absolutely counter-revolutionary thing? Every sincere Communist imitating his idol Lenin and the greatest revolutionary strategists must always wish for war. Nothing is so effective in bringing nearer the victory of revolution as war. This is a Marxist-Leninist dogma, which you must preach. Now further: Stalin's National-Communism, this type of bonapartism, is capable of blinding the intellect of the most pure-blooded Communists, right up to the point at which it prevents their seeing that the transformation into which Stalin has fallen, i.e., that he subjects the revolution to the State, and not the State to the revolution, it would be correct ...
G. - Your hate of Stalin blinds you and you contradict yourself. Have we not agreed that an attack on the USSR would not be welcome?
R. - But why should war be necessarily against the Soviet Union?
G. - But on what other country could Hitler make war? It is sufficiently clear that he would direct his attack on the USSR, of this he speaks in his speeches. What further proofs do you need?
R. - If you, the people from the Kremlin, consider it to be quite definite and not debatable, then why did you provoke the Civil War in Spain. Do not tell me that it was done for purely revolutionary reasons. Stalin is incapable of carrying out in practice a single Marxist theory. If there were revolutionary considerations here, then it would not be right to sacrifice in Spain so many excellent international revolutionary forces. This is the country which is furthest from the USSR, and the most elementary strategical education would not have allowed the loss of these forces ... How would Stalin be able in case of conflict to supply and render military help to a Spanish Soviet republic? But this was correct. There we have an important strategic point, a crossing of opposing influences of the Capitalist States ..., it might have been possible to provoke a war between them. I admit that theoretically this may have been right, but in practice - no. You already see how the war between the democratic Capitalist and fascist States did not begin. And now I shall tell you: if Stalin thought that he was capable of himself creating an excuse sufficient in order to provoke a war, in which the Capitalist States would have had to fight among themselves, then why does he not at least admit, if only theoretically, that others too can achieve the same thing, which did not seem impossible to him? ...
G. - If one is to agree with your assumptions then one can admit this hypothesis.
R. - That means that there is yet a second point of agreement between us: the first [552]- that there must be no war against the USSR, the second - that it would be well to provoke it between the bourgeois States.
G. - Yes, I agree. Is that your personal opinion, or "Theirs"?
R. - I express it as my opinion. I have no power and no contact with "Them," but I can confirm that in these two points it coincides with the view of the Kremlin.
G. - That is the most important thing and for that reason it is important to establish this beforehand. By the way, I would also like to know on what you base yourself in your confidence that "They" approve this.
R. If I had the time in order to explain their full scheme, then you would already know about the reasons for their approval. At the present moment I shall condense them to three:
G. - Just which?
R. - One is that which I had already mentioned. Hitler, this uneducated and elementary man, has restored thanks to his natural intuition and even against the technical opinion of Schacht, an economic system of a very dangerous kind. Being illiterate in all economic theories and being guided only by necessity he removed, as we had done it in the USSR, the private and international capital. That means that he took over for himself the privilege of manufacturing money, and not only physical moneys, but also financial ones; he took over the untouched machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of the State. He exceeded us, as we, having abolished it in Russia, replaced it merely by this crude apparatus called State Capitalism; this was a very expensive triumph in view of the necessities of pre-revolutionary demagogy ... Here I give you two real facts for comparison. I shall even say that Hitler had been lucky; he had almost no gold and for that reason he was not tempted to create a gold reserve. Insofar as he only possessed a full monetary guarantee of technical equipment and colossal working capacity of the Germans, his "old reserve" was technical capacity and work ..., something so completely counter-revolutionary that, as you already see, he has by means of magic, as it were, radically eliminated unemployment among more than seven million technicians and workers.
G. - Thanks to increased re-armament.
R. - What does your re-armament give? If Hitler reached this despite all the bourgeois economists who surround him, then he was quite capable, in the absence of the danger of war, of applying his system also to peaceful production ... Are you capable of imagining what would have come of this system if it had infected a number of other States and brought about the creation of a period of autarky ... For example the Commonwealth. If you can, then imagine its counter-revolutionary functions ... The danger is not yet inevitable, as we have had luck in that Hitler restored his system not according to some previous theory, but empirically, and he did not make any formulation of a scientific kind. This means that insofar as he did not think in the light of a deductive process based on intelligence, he has no scientific terms [553] or a formulated doctrine; yet there is a hidden danger as at any moment there can appear, as the consequence of deduction, a formula. This is very serious. Much more so that all the external and cruel factors in National-Socialism. We do not attack it in our propaganda as it could happen that through theoretical polemics we would ourselves provoke a formulation and systematization of this so decisive economic doctrine. There is only one solution - war.
R. - If the Termidor triumphed in the Soviet revolution then this happened as the result of the existence of the former Russian nationalism. Without such a nationalism bonapartism would have been impossible. And if that happened in Russia, where nationalism was only embryonic in the person of the Tsar, then what obstacles must Marxism meet in the fully developed nationalism of Western Europe? Marx was wrong with respect to the advantages for the success of the revolution. Marxism won not in the most industrialized country, but in Russia, where the proletariat was small. Apart from other reasons our victory here is explained by the fact that in Russia there was no real nationalism, and in other countries it was in its full apogee. You see how it is reborn under this extraordinary power of fascism, and how infectious it is. You can understand that apart from that it can benefit Stalin, the need for the destruction of nationalism is alone worth a war in Europe.
G. - In sum you have set out, Rakovsky, one economic and one political reason. Which is the third?
R. - That is easy to guess. We have yet another reason, a religious one. Communism cannot be the victor if it will not have suppressed the still living Christianity. History speaks very clearly about this: the permanent revolution required seventeen centuries in order to achieve its first partial victory - by means of the creation of the first split in Christendom. In reality Christianity is our only real enemy, since all the political and economic phenomena in the bourgeois States are only its consequences. Christianity, controlling the individual, is capable of annulling the revolutionary projection of the neutral Soviet or atheistic State by choking it and, as we see it in Russia, things have reached the point of the creation of that spiritual nihilism which is dominant in the ruling masses, which have, nevertheless, remained Christian: this obstacle has not yet been removed during twenty years of Marxism. Let us admit in relation to Stalin that towards religion he was not bonapartistic. We would not have done more than he and would have acted in the same way. And if Stalin had dared, like Napoleon, to cross the Rubikon of Christianity, then his nationalism and counter-revolutionary power would have been increased a thousandfold. In addition, if this had happened then so radical a difference would have made quite impossible any collaboration in anything between us and him, even if this were to be only temporary and objective ... like the one you can see becoming apparent to us.
G. - And so I personally consider that you have given a definition of three fundamental points, on the basis of which [554] a plan can be made. That is what I am in agreement about with you for the present. But I confirm to you my mental reservations, i.e. my suspicion in relation to all that which you have said concerning people, organizations and facts. Now continue to follow the general lines of your plan.
R. - Yes, now this moment has arrived. But only a preliminary qualification: I shall speak on my own responsibility. I am responsible for the interpretation of those preceding points in the sense in which "They" understand them, but I admit that "They" may consider another plan to be more effective for the attainment of the three aims, and one quite unlike that which I shall now set out. Bear that in mind.
G. Very well, we shall bear it in mind. Please speak.
R. - We shall simplify. Insofar as the object is missing for which the German military might had been created - to give us power in the USSR - the aim now is to bring about an advance on the fronts and to direct the Hitlerist advance not towards the East, but the West.
{Why this change in goal? Why abandon the restoration of Trotsky?}
G. - Exactly. Have you thought of the practical plan of realization?
R. - I had had more than enough time for that at the Lubianka. I considered. So look: if there were difficulties in finding mutually shared points between us and all else took its normal course, then the problems comes down to again trying to establish that in which there is similarity between Hitler and Stalin.
G. - Yes, but admit that all this is problematical.
R. - But not insoluble, as you think. In reality problems are insoluble only when they include dialectical subjective contradictions; and even in that case we always consider possible and essential a synthesis, overcoming the "morally-impossible" of Christian metaphysicians.
G. - Again you begin to theorize.
R. - As the result of my intellecutal discipline - this is essential for me. People of a big culture prefer to approach the concrete through a generalization, and not the other way round. With Hitler and with Stalin one can find common ground, as, being very different people, they have the same roots; if Hitler is sentimental to a pathological degree, but Stalin is normal, yet both of them are egoists: neither one of them is an idealist, and for that reason both of them are bonapartists, i.e. classical Imperialists. And if just that is the position, then it is already not difficult to find common ground betveen them. Why not, if it proved possible between one Tsarina and one Prussian King ...
G. - Rakovsky, you are incorrigible ...
R. - You do not guess? If Poland was the point of union between Catherine and Frederick - the Tsarina of Russia and the King of Germany at that time, then why cannot Poland serve as a reason for the finding of common ground between Hitler and Stalin? In Poland the persons of Hitler and Stalin can coincide. and also the historical Tsarist Bolshevik and Nazi lines. Our line, "Their' line - also, as Poland is a Christian State and, what makes the matter even more complex, a Catholic one. [555]
G. - And what follows from the fact of such a treble coincidence?
R. - If there is common ground then there is a possibility of agreement.
G. - Between Hitler and Stalin? ... Absurd! Impossible.
R. - In politics there are neither absurdities, nor the impossible.
G. - Let us imagine, as an hypothesis: Hitler and Stalin advance on Poland.
R. - Permit me to interrupt you; an attack can be called forth only by the following alternative: war or peace. You must admit it.
G. - Well, and so what?
R. - Do you consider that England and France, with their worse armies and aviation, in comparison with Hitler's, can attack the united Hitler and Stalin?
G. - Yes, that seems to me to be very difficult ... unless America ...
R. - Let us leave the United States aside for the moment. Will you agree with me that as the result of the attack of Hitler and Stalin on Poland there can be no European war?
G. - You argue logically; it would seem impossible.
R. - In that case an attack or war would be useless. It would not call forth the mutual destruction of the bourgeois States: the Hitlerist threat to the USSR would continue in being after the division of Poland since theoretically both Germany and the USSR would have been strengthened to the same extent. In practice Hitler to a greater extent since the USSR does not need more land and raw materials for its strengthening, but Hitler does need them.
G. - This is a correct view ..., but I can see no other solution.
R. - No, there is a solution.
G. - Which?
R. - That the democracies should attack and not attack the aggressor.
G. - What are you saying, what hallucination! Simultaneously to attack and not to attack ... That is something absolutely impossible.
R. - You think so? Calm down ... Are there not two aggressors? Did we not agree that there will be no advance just because there are two? Well ... What prevents the attack on one of them?
G. - What do you want to say by that?
R. - Simply that the democracies will declare war only on one aggressor, and that will be Hitler.
G. - Yes, but that is an unfounded hypothesis.
R. - A hypothesis, but having a foundation. Consider: each State which will have to fight with a coalition of enemy States has as its main strategical objective to destroy them separately one after another. This rule is so well known that proofs are superfluous. So, agree with me that there are no obstacles to the creation of such conditions. I think that the question that Stalin will not consider himself aggrieved in case of an attack on Hitler is already settled. Is that not so? In addition geography imposes this attitude, and for that reason strategy also. [556] However stupid France and England may be in preparing to fight simultaneously against two countries, one of which wants to preserve its neutrality, while the other, even being alone, represents for them a serious opponent, from where and from which side could they carry out an attack on the USSR? They have not got a common border; unless they were to advance over the Himalayas ... Yes, there remains the air front, but with what forces and from where could they invade Russia? In comparison with Hitler they are weaker in the air. All the arguments I have mentioned are no secret and are well known. As you see, all is simplified to a considerable extent.
G.- Yes, your arguments seem to be logical in the case if the conflict will be limited to four countries; but there are not four, but more, and neutrality is not a simple matter in a war on the given scale.
R. - Undoubtedly, but the possible participation of many countries does not change the power relationships. Weigh this in your mind and you will see how the balance will continue, even if others or even all European States come in. In addition, and this is very important, not one of those States, which will enter the war at the side of England and France will be able to deprive them of leadership; as a result the reasons which will prevent their attack on the USSR will retain their significance.
G. - You forget about the United States.
R. - In a moment you will see that I have not forgotten. I shall limit myself to the investigation of their function in the preliminary programme, which occupies us at present, and I shall say that America will not be able to force France and England to attack Hitler and Stalin simultaneously. In order to attain that the United States would have to enter the war from the very first day. But that is impossible. In the first place because America did not enter a war formerly and never will do so if it is not attacked. Its rulers can arrange that they will be attacked, if that will suit them. Of that I can assure you. In those cases when provocation was not successful and the enemy did not react to it, aggression was invented. In their first international war, the war against Spain, of the defeat of which they were sure, they invented an aggression, or, more correctly, "They" invented it. In 1914 provocation was successful. True, one can dispute technically if there was one, but the rule without exceptions is that he who makes a sudden attack without warning, does it with the help of a provocation. Now it is like this: this splendid American technique which I welcome at any moment, is subject to one condition: that aggression should take place at a suitable moment, i.e. the moment required by the United States who are being attacked; that means then, when they will have the arms. Does this condition exist now? It is clear that it does not. In America there are at present a little less than one hundred thousand men under arms and a middling aviation: it has only an imposing fleet. But you can understand that, having it, it can not persuade its allies to decide on an attack on the USSR, since England and France have preponderance only at sea. I have also proved to you that from that side there can be no change in the comparative strengths of the forces. [557]
G. - Having agreed with this, I ask you again to explain once more the technical realization.
R. - As you have seen, given the coincidence of the interests of Stalin and Hitler with regard to an attack on Poland, all comes down to the formalization of this full similarity of aims and to make a pact about a double attack.
G. - And you think this is easy?
R. - Frankly, no. Here we need a diplomacy which is more experienced than that of Stalin. There ought to have been available the one which Stalin had decapitated, or the one which now decays in the Lubianka. In former times Litvinov would have been capable, with some difficulties, although his race would have been a great obstacle for negotiations with Hitler; but now this is a finished man and he is destroyed by a terrible panic; he is experiencing an animal fear of Molotov, even more than of Stalin. His whole talent is directed towards making sure that they should not think that he is a Trotzkyist. If he were to hear of the necessity of arranging closer relations with Hitler, then that would be enough for him to manufacture for himself the proof of his Trotzkyism. I do not see a man who is capable of this job; in any event he would have to be a pure-blooded Russian. I could offer my services for guidance. At the present moment I would suggest to the one who begins the talks, that they should be strictly confidential, but with great open sincerity. Given a whole wall of various prejudices only truthfulness can deceive Hitler.
G. - I again do not understand your paradoxial expressions.
R. - Forgive me, but this only appears to be so; I am forced by the synthesis to do so. I wanted to say that with Hitler one must play a clean game concerning the concrete and most immediate questions. It is necessary to shew him that the game is not played in order to provoke him into war on tvo fronts. For example, it is possible to promise him and to prove at the most suitable moment that our mobilization will be limited to a small number of forces, required for the invasion of Poland, and that these forces will not be great. According to our real plan we shall have to place our main forces to meet the possible Anglo French attack. Stalin will have to be generous with the preliminary supplies which Hitler will demand, chiefly oil. That is what has come to my mind for the moment. Thousands of further questions will arise, of a similar character, which will have to be solved so that Hitler, seeing in practice that we only want to occupy our part of Poland, would be quite certain of that. And insofar as in practice it should be just like that, he will be deceived by the truth.
{"provoke him into war on tvo fronts" - i.e. the fall of Hitler is now more important than the fall of Stalin or the restoration of Trotsky}
G. - But in what, in this case, is there a deception?
R. - I shall give you a few minutes of time so that you yourself can discover just in what there is a deception of Hitler. But first I want to stress, and you should take note, that the plan which I have indicated here, is logical and normal and I think that one can achieve that the Capitalistic States will destroy each other, if one brings about a clash of their two wings: the fascist and the bourgeois. I repeat that the plan is logical and normal. As you have slready heen able to see, there is no intervention here of mysterious or unusual factors. In short in order that one should be able to realize the plan, "Their" intervention is not required. [558] Now I should like to guess your thoughts: are you not now thinking that it would be stupid to waste time on proving the unprovable existence and power held by "Them." Is that not so?
G. You are right.
R. - Be frank with me. Do you really not observe their intervention? I informed you, wanting to help you, that their intervention exists and is decisive, and for that reason the logic and naturalness, of the plan are only apparances ... Is it really true that you do not see "Them"?
G. - Speaking sincerely, no.
R. - The logic and naturalness of my plan is only an appearance. It would be natural and logical that Hitler and Stalin would inflict defeat on each other. For the democracies that would be a simple and easy thing, if they would have to put forward such an aim, for them it would be enough that Hitler should be permitted, make note "permitted" to attack Stalin. Do not tell me that Germany could be defeated. If the Russian distances and the dreadful fear of Stalin and his henchmen of the Hitlerite axe and the revenge of their victims will not be enough in order to attain the military exhaustion of Germany, then there will be no obstacles to the democracies, seeing that Stalin is losing strength, beginning to help him wisely and methodically, continuing to give that help until the complete exhaustion of both armies. In reality that would be easy, natural and logical, if those motives and aims which are put forward by the democracies and which most of their followers believe to be the true ones, and not what they are in reality - pretexts. There is only one aim, one single aim: the triumph of Communism; it is not Moscow which will impose its will on the democracies, but New York, not the "Comintern," but the "Capintern" on Wall Street. Who other that he could have been able to impose on Europe such an obvious and absolute contradiction? What force can lead it towards complete suicide? Only one force is able to do this: money. Money is power and the sole power.
G. - I shall be frank with you, Rakovsky. I admit in you an exceptional gift of talent. You possess brilliant dialectic, persuasive and subtle: when this is not enough for you, then your imagination has command of means in order to extend your colourful canvas, while you invent brilliant and clear perspectives; but all this, although it provokes my enthusiasm, is not enough for me. I shall go over to putting questions to you, assuming that I believe all that you have said.
R. - And I shall give you replies, but with one single condition, that you should not add anything to what I shall say, nor deduct.
G. - I promise. You assert that "They" hinder or will hinder a German-Soviet war, which is logical from the point of view of the Capitalists. Have I explained it correctly?
R. - Yes, precisely so.
G. - But the reality of the present moment is such that Germany has been permitted to re-arm and expand. This is a fact. I already know that in accordance with your explanation this was called forth by the Trotzkyist plan, which fell through thanks to the "cleanings-out" now taking place; thus [559] the aim has been lost. In the face of a new situation you only advise that Hitler and Stalin should sign a pact and divide Poland. I ask you: how can we obtain a guarantee that, having the pact, or not having it, carrying out, or not carrying out the partition, Hitler will not attack the USSR?
R. - This cannot be guaranteed.
G. - Then why go on talking?
R. - Do not hurry. The magnificent threat to the USSR is real and exists. This is not an hypothesis and not a verbal threat. It is a fact and a fact which obliges. "They" already have superiority over Stalin, a superiority which cannot be denied. Stalin is offered only one altemative, the right to choose, but not full freedom. The attack of Hitler will come in any case of its own accord; "They" need not do anything to make it happen but only leave him the chance of acting. This is the basic and determining reality, which has been forgotten by you owing to your excessively Kremlin-like way of thinking ... Egocentrism, Sir, egocentrism.
G. - The right to choose?
R. - I shall define it exactly once more, but shortly: either there will be an attack on Stalin, or there will come the realization of the plan I have indicated, according to which the European Capitalistic States will destroy each other. I drew attention to this alternative, but as you see it was only a theoretical one. If Stalin wants to survive then he will be forced to realize the plan which has been proposed by me and ratifed by "Them."
G. - But if he refuses?
R. - That will be impossible for him. The expansion and re-armament of Germany will continue. When Stalin will be faced by this gigantic threat ..., then what will he do? This will be dictated to him by his own instinct of self-preservation.
G. - It seems that events must develop only according to the orders indicated by "Them."
R. - And it is so. Of course, in the USSR to-day things still stand llke this, but sooner or later it wili happen like that all the same. It is not difficult to foretell and to suggest for carrying out something, if it is profitable for the person who must realize the matter, in the given case Stalin, who is hardly thinking of suicide. It is much more difficult to give a prognosis and to force to act as needed someone for whom that is not profitable, but who must act nevertheless, in the given case the democracies. T have kept the explanation for this moment to give a concrete picture of the true position. Reject the wrong thought that you are the arbiters in the given situation, since "They" are the arbiters.
G. - "They" both in the first and the second case ... Therefore we must deal with shadows?
R. - But are facts shadows? The international situation will be extraordinary, but not shadowy; it is real and very real. This is not a miracle; here is predetermined the future policy ... Do you think this is the work of shadows?
G.--But let us see; let us assume that your plan is accepted ... But we must have something tangible, personal, in order to be able to carry out negotiations.
R. - For example? [560]
G. - Some person with powers of attorney and representation.
R. - But for what? Just for the pleasure of becoming acquainted wlth him? For the pleasure of a talk? Bear in mind that the assumed person, in case of his appearance, will not present you with credentials with seals and crests and wlll not wear a diplomatic uniform, at least a man from "Them"; if he were to say something or promise, then it wlll have no Juridical force or meaning as a pact ... Understand that "They" are not a State; "They" are that which the International was before 1917, that which it still is nothing and at the same time everything. Imagine to yourself if it is possible that the USSR would have negotiations with freemasonry, with an espionage organiation, with the Macedonian Komitadgi or the Croatian Ustashi. Would not some Juridlcal agreement be written? ... Such pacts as the pact of Lenin with the German General Staff, as the pact of Trotzky with "Them" -- are realized without written documents and without signatures. The only guarantee of their execution is rooted in the circumstance that the carrying out of that which has been agreed is profitable for the parties to the pact, this guarantee is the sole reality in the pact, however great may be its importance.
G. - From what would you begin in the present case?
R. - Simple; I should begin already from to-morrow to sound out Berlin ...
G. - In order to agree about the attack on Poland?
R. - I would not begin with that ... I would display my willingness to yield and would hint about certain disappointments among the democracies, I would soft-pedal in Spain ... This would be an act of encouragement; then I would drop a hint about Poland. As you see - nothing compromising, but enough so that a part of the OKW (German High Command - Transl.), the Bismarckists, as they are called, would have some arguments to put before Hitler.
G. - And nothing more?
R. - For the beginning, nothing more; this is already a big diplomatic task.
G. - Speaking frankly, having in mind the aims which have been dominant in the Kremlin until now, I do not think that anyone would at present dare to advise such a radical change in international policy. I propose to you, Rakovsky, to transform yourself in imagination into that person at the Kremlin which will have to take the decision ... On the basis only of your disclosures, arguments, your hypotheses and persuasion, as I see it, it would be impossible to convince anyone. I personally, after having listened to you and at the same time, I shall not deny it, having experienced a strong influence from your explanations, of your personality, have not for a single moment experienced the temptation to consider the German-Soviet pact to be something realizable.
R. - International events will force with irresistible strength ...
G. - But that would be a loss of valuable time. Consider something concrete, something which I could put forward as a proof of your veracity and credibility ... In the contrary case I should not dare to transmit your information about our conversation; I should edit it with all accuracy, but it would reach the Kremlin archives and stay there. [561]
R. - Would it not be enough to bring about that it is taken into consideration if someone, even in a most official manner, were to have a talk with some very important person?
G. - It seems to me that this would be something real.
R. - But with whom?
G. - This is only my personal opinion, Rakovsky. You had mentioned concrete persons, big financiers; if I remember correctly, you had spoken about a certain Schiff, for example; then you mentioned another who had been the go-between with Hitler for the purpose of financing him. There are also politicians or persons with a big position, who belong to "Them" or, if you like, serve "Them." Someone like that could be of use to us in order to start something practical ... Do you know someone?
R. - I do not think it is necessary ... Think: about what will you be negotiating? Probably about the plan which I have set out, is that not so? For what? At the present moment "They" need not do anything in this context; "Their" mission is "not to do." And for that reason you would not be able to agree about any positive acton and could not demand it ... Remember, consider well.
G. - Even if that is so, yet in view of our personal opinion there must be a reality, even if a useless one ..., a man, a personality which would confirm the credibility of the power, which you ascribe to "Them."
R. - I shall satisfy vou, although I am sure of the uselessness of this. I have already told you that I do not know who is a part of "Them," but have assurances from a person who must have known them.
G. - From whom?
R. - From Trotzky. From Trotzky I know only that one of 'Them" was Walter Rathenau, who was well known from Rapallo. You see the last of "Them" who occupied a political and social position, since it was he who broke the economic blockade of the USSR. Despite the fact that he was one of the biggest millionaires; of course, such also was Lionel Rothschild. I can with confidence mention only these names. Naturally I can name still more people, the work and personality of whom I determine as being fully "Theirs," but I cannot confirm what these people command or whom they obey.
G. - Mention some of them.
R. - As an institutions - the Bank of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., of Wall Street; to this bank belong the families of Schiff, Warburg, Loeb and Kuhn; I say families in order to point out several names, since they are all connected among themselves by marriages; then Baruch, Frankfurter, Altschul, Cohen, Benjamin, Strauss, Steinhardt, Blom, Rosenman, Lippmann, Lehman, Dreifus, Lamont, Rothschild, Lord, Mandel Morgenthau, Ezekiel, Lasky. I think that that will be enough names; if I were to strain my memory, then perhaps I would remember some more but I repeat, that I do not know who among them can be one of "Them" and I cannot even assert, that any one of them is definitely of their number; I want to avoid any responsibility. But I certainly think that any one of the persons I have enumerated, even of those not belonging to "Them," [562] could always lead to "Them" with any proposition of an important type. Of course, independently of whether this or that person does or does not belong to "Them," one cannot expect a direct reply. The answer will be given by facts. That is the unchangeable tactic which they prefer and with which they force one to reckon. For example, if you would risk beginning diplomatic initiatives, then you would not need to make use of the method of a personal approach to "Them"; one must limit oneself to the expression of thoughts, the exposition of some rational hypothesis, which depends on unknown definite factors. Then it only remains to wait.
G.--You understand that I have not ot a card-index at my dispesal at the moment, in order to establish all the men yvou have mentioned: I assume that they are probably somewhere far away. Where?
R. - Most of them in the United States.
G.- Plese understand that if we were to decide to act, then we would have to devote much time to it. But the matter is urgent, and urgent not for us, but for you. Rakovsky.
R. - For me?
G.--Yes. for you. Remember that your trial will take place very soon. I do not know, but I think it will not be risky to assume that if all that had been discussed here were to interest the Kremlin, then it must interest them before you appear before the tribunal: that would be for you a decisive matter. I think it is in your personal interests that you should propose something quicker to us. The most important thing is to get proofs that you spoke the truth, and to do this not during a period of several weeks, but during several days. I think that if you were to succeed in this, then I could nearly give you fairly solid assurances concerning the possibility of saving your life ... In the contrary case I answer for nothing.
R. - In the end I shall take the risk. Do you know if Davis is at present in Moscow? Yes, the Ambassador of the United States.
G. - I think he is; he should have returned.
R. - Only an exceptional situation gives me the right, as I see it, against the rules, to make use of an official intermediary.
G. - Therefore we can think that the American Government is behind all this ...
R. - Behind - no under all this ...
G. - Roosevelt?
R. - What do I know? I can only come to conclusions. You are all the time obsessed with the mania of political espionage. I could manufacture, in order to please you, a whole history; I have more than sufficient imagination, dates and true facts in order to give it veracity in appearance, which would be close to looking obvious. But are not the generally known facts more obvious? And you can supplement them with your own imagination, if you wish. Look yourself. Remember the morning of the 24th October 1929. The time will come when this day will be for the history of the revolution more important than October, 1917. On the day of the 24th October there took place the crash of the New York Stock Exchange, the beginning [563] of the so-called "depression," a real revolution. The four years of the Government of Hoover - are years of revolutionary progress: 12 and 15 millions on strike. In February, 1933 there takes place the last stroke of the crisis with the closing of the banks. It is difficu1t to do more than capital did in order to break the "classical American," who was still on his industrial bases and in the economic respect enslaved by Wall Street. It is well known that any impoverishment in economics, be it in relation to societies or animals, gives a flourishing of parasitism, and capital is a large parasite. But this American revolution pursued not only the one aim of increasing the power of money for those who had the right to use it, it pretended to even more. Although the power of money is political power, but before that it had only been used indirectly, but now the power of money was to be transformed into direct power. The man through whom they made use of such power was Franklin Roosevelt. Have you understood? Take note of the following: In that year 1929, the first year of the American revolution, in February Trotzky leaves Russia; the crash takes place in October ... The financing of Hitler is agreed in July, 1929. You think that all this was by chance? The four years of the rule of Hoover were used for the preparation of the seizure of power in the United States and the USSR; there by means of a financial revolution, and here with the help of war and the defeat which was to follow. Could some good novel with great imagination be more obvious to you? You can understand that the execution of the plan on such a scale requires a special man, who can direct the executive power in the United States, who has been predetermined to be the organizing and deciding force. That man was Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. And permit me to say that this two-sexed being is not simply irony. He had to avoid any possible Delilah.
G. - Is Roosevelt one of "Them"?
R. - I do not know if he is one of "Them," or is only subject to "Them." What more do you want? I think that he was conscious of his mission, but cannot assert whether he obeyed under duress of blackmail or he was one of those who rule; it is true that he carried out his mission, realized all the actions which had been assigned to him accurately. Do not ask me more, as I do not know any more.
G. - In case it should be decided to approach Davis, in which form would you do it?
R. - First of all you must select a person of such a type as "the baron"; he could be useful ... Is he still alive?
G. - I do not know.
R. - All right, the choice of persons is left to you. Your delegate must present himself as being confidential or not modest, but best of all as a secret oppositionist. The conversation must be cleverly conducted concerning that contradictory position into which the USSR has been put by the so-called European democracies, by their union against National-Socialism. This is the conclusion of an alliance with the British and French Imperialism, the contemporary real Imperialism, for the destruction of the potential Imperialism. The aim of the verbal expressions must be to conjoin the false Soviet position with an equally false one of American democracy ... It also sees itself [564] forced to support Colonial Imperialism for the defence of democracy within England and France. As you see, the question can be put onto a very strong logical foundation. After that it is already very easy to formulate a hypothesis about actions. The first: that neither the USSR, nor the United States are interested in European Imperialism and thus the dispute is brought down to the question of personal hegemony; that ideologically and economically Russia and America want the destruction of European Colonial Imperialism, be it direct or oblique. The United States want it even more. If Europe were to lose all its power in a new war, then England, not having its own forces, with the disappearance of Europe as a force, as power, would from the first day lean, with all its weight and with the whole of its Empire, speaking the English language, on the United States, which would be inevitable both in the political and economic sense ... Analyze what you have heard in the light of the Left conspiracy, as one might say, without shocking any American boureois. Having got to this point, one could have an interval for a few days. Then, having noted the reaction, it will be necessary to move further. Now Hitler comes forward. Here one can point to any aggression: he is fully an aggressor and of this there can be no doubt. And then one can go over to asking a question: What common action should be undertaken by the United States and the Soviet Union in view of the war between the Imperialists, who want it? The answer could he - neutrality. One must argue again: yes, neutrality, but it does not depend on the wish of one side, but also of the aggressor. There can be a guarantee of neutrality only when the aggressor cannot attack or it does not suit him. For this purpose the infallible answer is the attack of the aggressor on another Imperialist State. From this it is very easy to go over to the expression of the necessity and morality, with a view to guaranteeing safety, for provoking a clash between the Imperialists, if that clash were not to take place of its own accord. And if that were to be accepted in theory, and it will be accepted, then one can regulate the question of actions in practice, which would be only a matter of technique. Here is a scheme: (1) A pact with Hitler for the division between us of Czechoslovakia and Poland (better the latter). (2) Hitler will accept. If he is capable of backing a bluff for the conquest, i.e. the seizure of something in alliance with the USSR, then for him there will be full guarantee in that the democracies will yield. He will be unable to believe their verbal threats as he knows that those who try to intimidate by war threats are at the same time partisans of disarmament and that their disarmament is real. (3) The democracies will attack Hitler and not Stalin; they will tell the people that although both are guilty of aggression and partition, but strategical and logical reasons force them to defeat them one by one: first Hitler and then Stalin.
G. - But will they not deceive us with truth?
R. - But how? Does not Stalin dispose of freedom of action in order to help Hitler in sufficient measure? Do we not put in his hands [565] the possibility of continuing the war between the Capitalists until the last man and the last pound? With what can they attack him? The exhausted States of the West will already have enough on their hands with internal Communist revolution, which in the other case may triumph.
G. - But if Hitler achieves a quick victory and if he, like Napoleon, mobilizes the whole of Europe against the USSR?
R. - This is quite improbable! You forget about the existence of the United States. You reject the power factor, a greater one. Is it not natural that America, imitating Stalin, would on its part help the democratic States? If one were to co-ordinate "against the hands of the clock" the help to both groups of fighters, then thus there will be assured without failure a permanent extension of the war.
G. - And Japan?
R. - Is not China enough for them? Let Stalin guarantee them his non-intervention. The Japanese are very fond of suicide, but after all not to such an extent as to be capable of simultaneously attacking China and the USSR. Any more objections?
G. - No, if it were to depend on me, then I would try ... But do you believe that the delegate ...?
R. - Yes, I believe. I was not given the chance of speaking with him, but note one detail: the appointment of Davis became known in November, 1936; we must assume that Roosevelt thought of sending him much sooner and with that in mind began preliminary steps; we all know that the consideration of the matter and the official explanations of the appointment take more than two months. Apparently his appointment was agreed in August ... And what happened in August? In August Zinoviev and Kamenev were shot. I am willing to swear that his appointment was made for the purpose of a new involvement of "Them' in the politics of Stalin. Yes, I certainly think so. With what an inner excitement must he have travelled, seeing how one after another there fall the chiefs of the opposition in the "purges" which follow one on another. Do you know if he was present at trial of Radeck?
G. - Yes.
R. - You will see him. Have a talk with him. He expects it already for many months.
G. - This night we must finish; but before we part I want to know something more. Let us assume that all this is true and all will be carried out with full success. "They" will put forward definite conditions. Guess what they might be?
R. - This is not difficult to assume. The first condition will be the ending of the executions of the Communists, that means the Trotzkyists, as you call them. Then, of course, they will demand the establishment of several zones of influence, as I had mentioned. The boundaries which will have to divide the formal Communism from the real one. That is the most important condition. There will be mutual concessions for mutual help for a time, while the plan lasts, being carried out. You will see for example the paradoxial phenomenon that a whole crowd [566] of people, enemies of Stalin, will help him, no they will not necessarily be proletarians, nor will they be professional spies. There will appear influential persons at all levels of society, even very high ones, who will help the Stalinist formal Communism when it becomes if not real, then at least objective Communism. Have you understood me?
G. - A little; you wrap up such things in such impenetrable casuistry.
R. - If it is necessary to end, then I can only express myself in this way. Let us see if I shall not be able yet to help to understand. It is known that Marxism was called Hegelian. So this question was vulgarised.Hegelian idealism is a widespread adjustment to an uninformed understanding in the West of the natural mysticism of Baruch Spinosa. "They" are Spinosists: perhaps the matter is the other way round, i.e. that Spinosism is "Them," insofar as he is only a version adequate to the epoch of "Their" own philosophy, which is a much earlier one, standing on a much higher level. After all, a Hegelian and for that reason also the follower of Spinosa, was devoted to his faith, but only temporarily, tactically. The matter does not stand as is claimed by Marxism, that as the result of the elimination of contradictions there arises the synthesis. It is as the result of the opposing mutual fusion, from the thesis and anti-thesis that there arises, as a synthesis, the reality, truth, as a final harmony between the subjective and objective. Do you not see that already? In Moscow there is Communism: in New York Capitalism. It is all the same as a thesis and anti-thesis. Analyze both. Moscow is subjective Communism, but Capitalism objective - State Capitalism. New York: Capitalism subjective, but Communism objective. A personal synthesis, truth: the Financial International, the Capitalist-Communist one. "They."
