mu Il

HERE is much talk to-
day of a future war, and
there is sometimes the in-
clination to forget about the
frightful war we have recent-
ly experienced. But the last
war has its own history and
pre-history; it did not originate
spontaneously and it could have
been prevented. As I read the
dispatches reporting how all sorts
of highly dultured airmen are
dropping bombs upon the cities
and Villages of certain countries,
less cultured in their opinion, I
can’t help remembering how the
blackshirts, depicted as vehicles
of western civilization, once drop-
ped bombs upon the cities and
villages of Ethiopia.
I remember the beau monde
rabble of Paris yelling: “Down
with Sanctions!” and cheering the
Duce. I remember the so-called
“gentlemen’s agreement,” upon
which I shall not dwell inasmuch
as one of the two gentlemen is
still alive. :
The newspapers
Europe write of the “necessity of
bringing General Franco into the
defense of Western Culture. I
first heard this a long time ago,
and General Franco was brought
in long ago — was it not here
that the “Non-Intervention Com-
mittee” met? I also remember
subsequent events: the umbrella
of a tireless gentleman who ne-
gotiated and reached agreement
with the. ober-cannibal.
_ Some like to say that was naive
—but the term naive is appli-
eable to those who think Munich
was naive; it had its own calcu-
lations, its own strategy, and the
fact that they did not succeed
does not mean that they did not
_ exist.
- After Munich; newspapers in
Britain and France referred re-
peatedly to the prospect of a Na-
gi march on the Ukraine. The
people who hate the future and
are prepared to go to the limit
in their effort to turn back his-
tory’s wheel, could not allow the
conclusion of a defensive agree-
ment between Britain and the
Soviet Union. Right up to the
_ very last moment they hoped that
- Hitler would move against the
East. Some British newspapers
readily recall the German-Soviet
-. Pact, but they make no mention
of anything that preceded this
pact; and yet, while history can
be made, it cannot be forged.

e ;

How well this London has sur-
-vived, although it sustained deep
wounds: it is needed by the Bri-
tish and by the whole world.
It was with deep sympathy that
the Soviet people watched the
staunch resistance of this city. ..
he hour came when we be-
game allies in battle. I shall not

. gall wounds that are still fresh
by recounting our hopes and dis-

in Western

* the

Peace
must
_ prevail

appointments. Where there are
blood and tears, there is no room
for bookkeeping accounts.

At the request of some British
newspapers I sent dispatches
from the front. One day I re-
ceived a cable from one news-
paper saying: “Please make no
further mention of the second
front.”

Someone beyond the ocean was
still sewing the last buttons on
the uniforms. Someone beyond

sometimes also saying: “Let the
Russians and the Germans kill
one another.” Our cities were

-ablaze, our people were dying, our

women were sobbing. But I will
not speak of this: you yourselves
know what Stalingrad was, as for
those who do not... well, it is
no use reminding them: it will
not do to speak of sacrifices to

the ungrateful, or to lead the-

blasphemous to the dear graves.

The common victory was 4
common festival. Our people are
not vindictive, and no one will
dare to describe the soldiers’ em-
braces on the Elbe as affectation.

But how has it happened that,
five years later, many politicians
and journalists of Britain speak
of us not as of yesterday’s allies,
but as 6f tomorrow’s adversaries?
How has it come about that ma-
ny British have come to believe
that the defenders of Stalingrad

who are now building up their

city are allegedly threatening the
inhabitants of Coventry?
Whence: does it stem? I may
be told: not from Britain. I
know. Nevertheless, although
Fulton is far away from good old

_ England, the first call for a new

war which rang out in that town
was uttered not in the American
dialect, but in good English, and
it came from a man looked upon
as a good old representative of
the good old England.

ocean was thinking, and ~

The common graves of these
soldiers have not yet become
overgrown with grass, but news-

In the whole world people are
now signing the Stockholm Ap-
peal: it is being signed in Ameri-
ca, in Kazakhstan, and in the
Congo . + But... there are
millions of honest British men
and women who loathe war and
who have not yet signed the
Stockholm Appeal.

I have had occasion to talk to
some of them; they cited argu-
ments read by them in the news-
papers; they said: “The Stock-
holm Appeal is directed against
the atom bomb. It is an advan-
tage to the Russians and a dis-
advantage to the Americans, Why
do you not object to any arms
in general? It is not accidental
that communists are signing this
Appeal, it probably plays into
their hands. It is now being
signed also in Russia, which
means that it is a move of the
Soviet government.” I want to
answer these: arguments in all
frankness.

They say that the demand for
banning the atom bomb is an ad-
vantage to the Soviet people and
a disadvantage to the Americans.
This is absurd, for it is general-
ly known that the atomic wea-
pon-has long ceased to be an Am-
erican monopoly ...

Why is the prohibition of the
atomic weapon of advantage to
one side? Servile newspapermen
prompt: “Because the Americans
have a bigger stock of atomic
bombs.” But everybody under-
stands that the quantity of bombs
dropped on cities cannot decide
a war.

The demand for the prohibition
of the atomic weapon is an equal
advantage or equal disadvantage
to either side. It is a disadvan-
tage to the shareholders of the

' aircraft factories, to the owners

_ ference to the

of the uranium ore, to the news-
paper blackmailers, but it is an
advantage to the plain people the
world over.

I believe that it makes no dif-
inhabitants of
Manchester or Edinburgh wheth-
er they perish from a “Western”

_ or “Eastern” bomb, and they are

papermen — not only in hustling ,

America, but also in reserved
Britain—are already talking of a
new, far more terrible war.

Ideological disputes are out of
place when it concerns the de-
fense of peace, the cause which
has brought us here and to which
we are dedicating our strength,
our intellect, our ardor. I do not
change clothes when I cross bor-
ders. I think and say in London
just what I think and say in Mos-
cow. :

There are among you people of
different walks of life, of differ-

ent opinions, different tastes; I

May agree with some and dis-
agree with others, but I agree
with all of you on the most im-
portant question: in order that
people may be able to live as they
desire, we need peace.

The atom bomb is no argument
in. a discussion. War cannot
prove the superiority of ideas.
Bombs ruin ancient cathedrals
and stock exchanges, factories,
and libraries, and with the lib-
raries the books of all writers,
all thinkers, all ideologists. War

therefore interested in the pro-
hibition of the atomic weapon.
The two sides involved in this
question are not America and the
Soviet Union, the two sides in-
volved in this question are: the
bomb and the people.

Among all the hitherto known
types of armaments q_ special
place belongs to the atomic wea-
pon: it is designated for the in-
timidation and mass destruction
of, millions of peaceful people. It
is perfectly natural that the first
demand of the supporters of
peace should be the demand for
absolute prohibition of the ato-

mic weapon.

destroys any endeavor, no mat--

ter whose labor it represents and
what its substance is. You have
your own state, your system,
your parties, your means of influ-
encing minds.

If we want to convince those
of you who find our state not
to their liking, we do this not
with arms, not with bombs, but
through our labor, our art, *our
books, our orchards, our prog-
ress, I May not like one or an-
other English writer. This writ-
er may not like my writings.
Well, he will go on writing in his
way, and I in mine. Can the
question of which of us writes
better be settled by dropping a
‘bomb on the readers?

»

e

The talk about a new war, a
third world war, began precisely
with the talk about the atom
bomb. At the time when the last
wounded were still in agony at
Hiroshima, adroit newspapermen
of the New World were already
scribbling their first articles
about the role of the atom bomb
in settling all disputed questions.

The propaganda for a third
world war has been closely con-
nected with the idea that it can
allegedly be easily won and with
impunity; all that will be needed
is to drop about a dozen atom
bombs and everything will be
over. This talk did and still does
plunge fhinds and hearts into dis-
may. The prohibition of the
atomic weapon will end this. dis-
gusting incitement; it will bring
down the temperature and ren-
der easier the beginning of peace-
ful negotiations.

Ohekhov said once that if there
is a gun on the wall in the first
act of a play, it is sure to shoot
in the last act. He spoke of the
logic of artistic production. There
is logic also in life. If the atom
bomb is brandished for a very
long time, this bomb will ex-
plode. The Stockholm Appeal is

intended to put an end to the.

evil game which is fraught with

LT | a

equal danger for the Russians,
for the Americans, for the Brit-
ish, for the inhabitants of all
the five continents of the globe.

People who do not wish to sign
the Stockholm Appéal say: “Why
do you protest only against the
atom bomb? Perhaps you like
ordinary bombs, tanks, or trench
mortars?” The task of the sup-
porters of peace is clear: we have
taken a vow to prevent a new
war. We detest atom bombs and
ordinary explosive bombs as well.
If we have made the prohibition
of the atomic weapon our first
demand it is onle because it is
the most disgusting, the most
deadly weapon.

We are convinced that if the
peoples of the whole world bring
about the
atomic weapon, there will be an
immediate relaxation in the ten-
sion and the possibility’ for ne-
gotiations between the great
powers for lasting peace. Pro-
hibition of the atomic weapon is
only the first step on the road to
peace, but it is impossible to cov-
er the entire road without tak-
ing the first step.

It iss Said that the Stockholm
Appeal plays into the hands of
the communists and that this is
the reason why the communists
alone are signing it. But it is
hard to understand why the pro-
hibition of the atomic weapon is
an advantage to the Paris com-
munists and a disadvantage to
the Paris catholics. Indeed, if
an atom bomb is dropped on
Paris, it will not make inquiries
about the political views of the
inhabitants of one or another dis-
trict.

It is not true that the Stock-
holm Appeal is being signed by
communists only; it is hardly pos-
sible to list among the latter the
former prime minister of Italy,
Signor Orlando, Signor Bonomi,
Signor Nitti, or the members of
the municipal council of Versailles
who in the majority are support-
ers of De Gualle, or Syrian cab-
inet ministers, or intellectuals
like Thomas Mann, Henri Mat-
isse, Pierre Venoit, Le Corbusier.

True communists are signing
the Stockholm Appeal; this
speaks well for the communists, —
but it does not change the ess-
ence of the document, which is.
equally acceptable to the com-'
munists, the laborites and the
conservatives. If a communist,
hoping to fight a fire, pours water
upon a burning house, this does
not make the water communistic.

I cannot understand why Eng-
lishmen who disagree with the
communists should want to give
the ,;communists the monopoly in
a dedply humane matter aon
nected with the fate of the en-
tire nation?

One Laborite told me: “I agree
with the text of the Stockholm
Appeal, but I do not want my
signature to get lost among the
signatures of the British com-
munists,.” It sounds childish: no
sooner shall all the British non- |
communists join in the demand
for outlawing the atomic weapon?
than the signatures of the com-
munists will be “lost” among mil-
lions of other signatures.

e

There remains one more argu-
ment: if the) Soviet people are
signing the Stockholm Appeal,
this means it serves to promote
the political aims of Moscow.
Last spring, at St Im, ap
American journalist, after liste?-
ing ‘to md, said triumphantly:
“And so you do admit that thé
Russians need peace?” I an-
swered: “Yes. But can you say
without bhishing that the Ameri-
cans do not need peace?”

Is there a bricklayer or a 8@~ —
dener in the world who is 2
outraged by the talk about the
atom bomb? Is there a mother
in the world who can calmly
articles about all sorts of suPeT
bombs? i

Yes, the Soviet people are U™
animously signing the Stockhol™

‘ Continued on next page

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — AUGUST 18, 1950 — PAGE 4

prohibition of the \