George Padmore 1941
Source: Left, No. 60, September 1941.
Transcribed: by Christian Hogsbjerg for Marxists.org 2007.
The defence of the Soviet Union against Nazi imperialism is the
George Padmore 1941
Source: Left, No. 60, September 1941.
Transcribed: by Christian Hogsbjerg for Marxists.org 2007.
The defence of the Soviet Union against Nazi imperialism is the obligation of every worker, colonial and progressive intellectual, regardless of our justifiable contempt for the Communist contortionists in Britain. This is not a sentimental matter. It is one which vitally concerns the future of the international working class and all progressive humanity.
At the time of the Russo-Finnish “incident” – to use the Japanese euphemism for aggression – I warned against the danger of that conflict developing into an imperialist war of intervention against the Soviet Union. This is what I wrote in Left (February, 1940):
“We regret the Soviet’s attack upon Finland and we must hold Stalin responsible for this major blow to the prestige of international Socialism. Nevertheless, it is necessary for the British working class to be on guard against being dragged into a war against the Russian workers and peasants under the hypocritical guise of defending ‘poor little Finland.’ ”
This tragedy was narrowly averted, thanks to the intransigent attitude of the Norwegian Government, and more particularly the transport workers of that country, who let it be known that they would refuse to transport the Franco-British expeditionary force that Chamberlain and Daladier were preparing to send through Norway.
In the light of the disasters that have since overtaken the Allied armies, the British people have every reason to he grateful to the Norwegians for spiking this adventure. For had Russia been attacked, she might have been forced willy-nilly into a military alliance with Germany, a combination too dreadful to contemplate.
It is always easy to be wise after the event. But it was clear to all class-conscious persons, on the Right as well as on the Left, that Stalin’s move against Finland (like Britain’s intervention in Syria) was dictated by strategic-military aim. What was this aim? The defence of Leningrad. Against whom? Nazi Germany.
While desiring peace, Russia had to prepare for war. The Soviet leaders knew that Russia could not remain immune from the main conflict should it spread. Stalin knew that Hitler’s pact was just a mariage de convenance, dictated by Germany’s military needs at the time it was signed. But in order not to strain this fragile relationship and perhaps provoke attack before the Soviet defences are ready to meet a blitzkrieg. Russian journalists and radio commentators dared not publicly state that Nazi Germany was the enemy against whom the Soviet was preparing. Instead, we had the ludicrous situation of compliments for the real enemy and abuse for Britain, France and even America. In this way the Soviet masses were made to believe that the Western imperialists were the only ones plotting war against their country, using the ex-Tsarist officer, Baron Mannerheim, as the cats-paw.
All this propaganda was duly parroted by British Communists and the Daily Worker. Instead of explaining the real situation, these contortionists played into the hands of the capitalists, making it easier for their press to confuse further the British workers concerning Russia’s defensive needs.
Finland, contrary to widespread belief at the time, was never so innocent as was made out. Geographically, Finland is the Baltic gateway to the Soviet Union. And the pro-Fascist ruling classes have been always ready to allow it to be used as a jumping off ground for imperialist armies to attack Russia. It was through Finland that German and other forces attacked the Soviet Union during the last war. The truth is, from the time Finland acquired her independence (thanks to the Russian Revolution) she has been a vassal, first of one Power, then of another. Accordingly, relations with the Soviet Union have been dictated not by the interests of the Finnish masses, but by those of some foreign Power or Powers. It has been consistent in one respect: hostity to the Soviet. It is an illusion, cherished only by Social-Democrats and muddle-headed Liberals, that in an imperialist-dominated world, small States can play an independent role in international affairs, especially in time of war, when Great Powers are manoeuvring for positions. What has happened to Iran while I write is a typical example of the helpless position of a small nation surrounded by big and powerful belligerents.
Hitler certainly knew that Stalin’s attack upon Finland was a defensive move directed against Germany, but, with the French Army and the B.E.F. standing on his western frontier, he could not risk going to the assistance of the Finnish Fascists. It was precisely in order to avoid a major war on two fronts that he signed the pact with Stalin in 1939. Why should he jeapodise it before settling accounts with the Democracies? Knowing the anti-Communist sentiments in the West, he could well afford to leave it to the Western Powers to render aid to Mannerheim (which they did) and perhaps get themselves invoked in a major war in Scandinavia and the Arctic.
Hitler’s calculations were not far wrong. Influential sections of the Right-Wing imperialists here and in France literally howled for war against Russia. These crypto-Fascists were prepared to forget Hitler and turn on Stalin. In this they had the objective, if not direct, support of certain British labour leaders, who were ideologically preparing the workers for such an adventure. Sir Walter Citrine, for example, hurried to Finland to confer with Mr. Tanner, the Social-Democratic leader, who is now the comrade-in-arms of Hitler, the greatest butcher of the