yo will of the people finds different expresions in dif- ferent countries; but the Euro- pean and not only the Euro- pean peoples, have drawn very similar conclusions from their experience of the present war. They want to build up their po- litical and social life in such a Way as to leave no loopholes ‘for fascism. It is not only a - Matter of extirpating the rem- “ nants of all influences: of pres- ent-day fascism, but of .creat- ing conditions that will pre- _ vent the birth of a new fascism. ~ The peoples do not want a re- sumption of reckless policies in foreign affairs, including reck- less policies directed against the Soviet Union. Lastly, the ‘peoples, and those of a number of countries in Eastern Europe in particular, wish to settle - stch burning questions affect- ing their lives as the abolition - of feudal and semi-feudal rela- tions in the agrarian system and of national oppression and strife between nations. Can it be- denied that the breakup and distribution of the: feudal latifundia among the small peasants is a democratic medsure, or that the struggle against the agrarian reform is a struggle against democracy? Can it be denied that . the ‘path of -peace and friendship ‘between nationalities, which has. now been taken by Yugo- slavia and Romania, for -ex- ample, is a democratic path, or that the forees which, like the Serbian or Croatian chauvin- ists or the Romanian “histori- cal parties’ ’are fighting to pre- vent the solution of the national problem, are thereby exposing themselves as downright ene mies of democracy? The pseudo-champions of democracy reveal their true colors most glaringly when they talk about Poland. From the point of view of democ- racy,. the so-called - Polish problem is absolutely clear. The Polish people, liberated froni the German-fascist yoke, are building up their new life on democratic prin- ciples. The work of restoring Polish statehood is being di- rected by the Provisional Government which is now functioning in Poland and which is headed by leaders of the .four Polish democratic “ parties, who came to the fore in the course of the self- sacrificing struggle waged by ‘the Polish patriots against the Hitler invaders. This government is exercising Power througheut the en- tire territory of Poland; it is supported by the people and is carrying out their will. _ ‘ oe the pseudo-champions of democracy are conducting a ‘fierce and unscrupulous cam- paign against the Provisional Polish Government, while at the. D }] m oT of ra ¢ y? Continued same time pleading the cause of the bankrupt politicans in the emigre Rackiewicz-Arcis- zewski clique. They are indig- nant when the Polish reaetion- ary emigre camp is called pro- fascist. But what else can it be called? - Everybody knows that this camp played a bane- ful role in prewar Poland and bears. grave responsibility for the disaster of September, 1939. Venting their spite and hostili- ty toward the Soviet Union in every possible way and basing all “their calculations on the possibility of disagreements arising among the Allies, these people. have, been acting as mouthpieces and abettors of the German fascists throughout the whole period of the war. ; Lastly, if any more. proof were required that these reac- tionary politicians who have become completely divorced from their country are the bit- terest enemies of democracy, they themselves have provided it by their hostility toward the Crimea decisions. Why do they so fiercely attack the agreement reached in the Crimea? Be- cause that agreement is based on democratic principles and the Polish reactionaries are perfectly well aware that they are utterly played out unless the former anti-popular regime is restored in Poland, unless there is a return to the fascist constitution of 1935, and unless the basis of feudal land owner- ship is preserved. . ‘HUS no special researches are needed to determine who are the friends of democracy and who are its foes. From the democratic point of view, and in this case it makes no difference whether one takes the stand of Soviet democracy .or that of Anglo- American democracy—it can- not be denied that gentlemen like Radescu in Romania, Linkomies, Tanner and Ryti in Finland; Raczikiewiez and Arciszewski among the Pol- ish emigres, and the corres- ponding political figures in other countries, are foes of democracy, are pro-fascists ; and that those who support these elements are acting against the interests of the people. Obviously, the road of “democrats” of this type is not the road of the Soviet Union, nor can it be the road of sincere champions of dem- Ocracy in other countries. The pseudo-champions of de- mocracy often advance an argu- ment .which the Observer’s “Student of Europe” formulat- ed in the following manner: “In Western usage, freedom of opposition and free competition of several parties for the votes of the people (including the upper and middle classes- are of the essence of democracy.” ‘From this the conclusion is drawn that the rallying of the ' forces of the people in a united front against pro-fascist groups and tendencies is a violation of democracy, that it leads to to- talitarianism, and so forth. It is not. difficult to expose the hypocrisy of this argument.. Why indeed should not the forces of the people in the countries. just liberated from Nazi tyranny organize and PAGE 10 — P.A. MAGAZINE SECTION form a united front in the struggle against the beaten, but not yet vanquished, foe? Why should they, to please the dubious “students” and _ still more the dubious friends of Europe, engage in “free compe- tition,” in other words, split up their forces and thereby weaken them, when the enemy is con- tinuing to weave his intrigues and is striving to recapture his lost positions by every means in his power? e In the “Student of Eur- ope’s” country, the political ‘parites decided to abstain from “free competition” at elections for the duration of ¢ the war—in the interests of the common struggle against the enemy, in the interests of uniting all the forces of the nation for this struggle. If this is the case in a powerful country like Great Britain, how much more imperative is it to rally all democratic ele- ments in a united front in the liberated countries of Europe which have only just entered upon a new path. (AN the peoples forget that it was precisely the disunity in the democratic camp, the div- ision of the democratic forces, that was one of the most im- “number of countries? portant factors in the establish- ment of fascist regimes in a The fascists were able to turn to. their advantage the fact that the democratic ele- ments in many countries of prewar Europe were unable to find a common ground. In particular, even the support- ers of democracy were so blinded by anti-Communist prejudice that they emphati- eally refused to have any dealings with Communists, losing sight. of the fact that thereby they were splitting the anti-fascist front and easing the task of fascism. The bloody lessons of the past few years have taught not only that a split is harmful, but also that unification of the pop- ular forces is beneficial. The Communists fought the Hitler invaders side by side with the representatives of all patriotic, all anti-fascist parties, groups and trends. The result was unit- ed action, cemented with the blood of the best fighters for freedom. How Do We Define The peoples of the liberated countries of Europe do not wish to repeat the fatal blunder of the prewar policy; they do not wish to pursue a path of split- ing the democratic forces. It is not for nothing that the Crimea -decisions speak of insuring na- tional unity in the liberated countries of Europe. But unity can be achieved only by uniting the popular forces and not by splitting them, by uniting all genuine democrats and not by inciting some democratic ele- ments against others. Democracy is a_ historical phenomenon. One cannot speak of one unchangeable democracy for all times and for all peoples. As is the case with every phe- nomenon in social life, democ- racy develops and goes for- ward. Present day democracy bears little resemblance to the democracy, say, of ancient Ath- ens; and the present political system of Great Britain, for example, differs very much from the system which existed in that country in Cromwell’s time. Even on the basis of the same social and economic sys- tem, extremely diverse forms of democratic statehood arise. Hence it would be -quite hopeless to demand that dem- ocracy should be built up in al], countries of Europe on a British or American model. This would be a totally un- warranted attempt to inter- fere in the internal affairs of other peoples, an attémpt to impose definite political can- ons upon them from the out- side. Such an attempt would of course have no chance of success because it would con- tradict the very spirit of dem- ocracy, would contradict the indisputable right of peoples “to create democratic institu- tions of their own choice.” Does this mean that sincere champions. of democracy need not now, when the fate of Ger- man fascism is already sealed, concern themselves with what is taking place outside their countries? It would be, to say the least, premature to draw a conclusion. Quite apart from universally-known cases of the grossest violation of democracy in European countries such as Greece, it is sufficient to recall the state of affairs in the col- onial world. To this day, as is well known, there is not even a whiff of democracy in the ecol- onial countries, where a very large part of the population of the globe resides. This is where those: who come out as the champions of democracy should direct their zeal. When, however, they strike a Hamlet pose and express doubts about the liberated coun- tries of Europe which have tak- en the path of political renova- tion, their concern appears affected and out of place. We must not forget the maneuvers of the German-fascist provoca- teurs. It is common knowledge that the latter at once. proclaim every event connected with the democratization of political life in any country on the European Continent as a “Kerensky re- gime” and “Bolshevization.” - The Hitlerites affix, the label “Kerensky” indiscriminately to . of the Soviet Union and that : political leaders of the verse complexion, and “Bolshevization” every gressive measure, every eratic reform, every step tak to punish war criminals a traitors to their country. It is not difficult to -< through the Hitlerites’ manet ers. They harp on the old tif some string that the only alt« native to fascist rule in Hurof is ‘“‘Bolshevization”’; that fep cism is the only conceival® “bulwark against Bolshevism® It is well known that the Erg lish-speaking countries did n allow themselves to be caug: by this bait, even when Ge) many was at the zenith of hi¥ power. Still more transpare? are these provocative tacti} now when the doom of fasci| Germany is not only inevitab} but imminent. Who except. tt} played-out Hitler adventure! stands to gain by convincin§ the British and Americans the} the European Continent