"It’s good that the Russian tsars took so much land for us in war. This makes our struggle with capitalism easier." (1 – 14 – 75 l page 8)My task as minister of foreign affairs was to expand the borders of our Fatherland. And it seems that Stalin and I coped with this task quite well. [ 11-29-74 ; page 8 ] * * *
Comment One can easily believe that one ; but, is that what the international community (loosely speaking) wanted or wants from Russia ?Was that not a sort of imperialism in its barest outline ? Whom would this Molotov etc. want to fool with their own harangues against ‘imperialism’ ?
Ernest Bevin was a Churchill man. Hostile. . . . (etc). [ 3-9-79 ; page 50 ] * * *
Comment Plainly untrue ; I would find it hard to imagine that this Molotov did not know Bevin as part of the opposition during the Churchill government years in England, and part of the Attlee's "labour" (so-called) government after 1945 ?One notes that Bevin’s statements have been consistently pro-Red, from 1920 to 1950 ; and he could be suspected to have been one of the (never detected) Soviet moles in the West. Molotov's overt lies on the subject of Bevin would support such a hypothesis.
Properly speaking, what was Hitler’s aggression? Wasn’t it class struggle? It was. And the fact that atomic war may break out, isn’t that class struggle? There is no alternative to class struggle. [?] This is a very serious question. The be-all and end-all is not peaceful coexistence, peaceful coexistence. After all, we have been holding on for some time, and under Stalin we held on to the point where the imperialists [?] felt able to demand point blank: either surrender such and such positions, or it means war. So far the imperialists [?] haven’t renounced that. [7-7-76, page 20] * * *
Comments The statements by this Molotov about the extension of the communist presence round the world are unequivocal. The imperialism of the tsars was on that account desirable ; for it meant, for Molotov and Co., more communistic influence in the lands bordering with Russia.This reminds one of the definitions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ which I have seen in some novel for the children ; when Kali steal a cow – good ; when somebody steal a cow from Kali – bad.
Unfortunately, all those lies and/or rantings by the Kremlin-masters have been all to too often taken for “good coin” – sometimes by people who genuinely hope for some social justice (but do not know how to go about achieving it) — sometimes by the merest criminals who find in this fabric of falsehoods a means of taking advantage over other individuals.
Please note the basic misconception of the ‘class’ struggle. – over an abstraction called ‘class’. The classes of men have been extremely numerous, in the numerous societies : would they be all reduced to some basic two classes ? No. The issues between or among the men have been perhaps no less numerous than the ‘classes’ of men.
Yet this Molotov etc. would, for the sake of their ‘class struggle’, allow practically anything. Anything would do for the sake of the destruction of ‘imperialism’. And anything which was not Bolshevik (i.e. the Hegel/Marx/Lenin/Stalin 'philosophy') was ‘imperialist’, ‘hostile’, to be opposed and destroyed – by any means.
But what about the freedoms of the individual ? What does that have to do with either some vague ‘imperialism’ on one hand – or with the brainless ‘communism’ on the other hand ?
How much destruction is to be tolerated, world-wide, for the sake of all this bunk?
Chuev, Feliks Ivanovich, 1941- Title(s) Sto sorok besed s Molotovym. English Molotov remembers : inside Kremlin politics : conversations with Felix Chuev / edited with an introduction and notes by Albert Resis. Publisher Chicago : I.R. Dee, 1993. Paging xxiii, 438 p. ; 24 cm. Notes Includes index.From cover notes : “Molotov’s conversations and monologues provide assurance that the banality of evil has never been limited to the borders of Germany” (David Remnick, author of Lenin’s Tomb) ; “One does not so much read this book as engage in a one-on-one conversation with a major figure in a gigantic criminal organization.” (Woodford McClellan, author of Russia : a history of the Soviet period ).
When Good Things Happen to the Bad People
orThe Legacy
ofGraves and Lies
" Why were people so willing to believe in Alger Hiss and reject Whittaker Chambers? ", Natalie Grant Wraga was asked.She did not know. One might essay an answer or answers.
Part of is was, the taste. Were the Bolsheviks in good taste ? Hah !
I mean, they were not. Now, why a housewife, or a wife of a President, would want anything not in good taste ?
Naturally, no persons of quality would want anything in bad taste. Hence, no persons of quality would want any truths about the Bolshevik/communist enterprises, unless they were somehow forced to confront the realities.
Those who had not been forced to face the communist threat, to the U.S.A. and world-wide, would naturally fail to confront it. Any kind of commie-concocted fable, any kind of conceivable excuse would serve, to protect someone's personal comfort and self-esteem.
Yet, the whole story is sickening. How come a relation of one of the greatest Russian composers had made a career of such villanies as were entirely unprecedented in the annals of humanity ?
WPT