First Published: The Call, Vol. 7, No. 38, October 2, 1978.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
Last week, The Call began a series explaining the policy of appeasement of certain sections of the U.S. ruling class towards the Soviet Union.
The first article gave some historical background. This article will examine several present-day examples.
* * *
Today, just like 40 years ago, appeasement of aggression is being practiced as one form of superpower contention. Just as the imperialists appeased Hitler’s drive toward war in the 1930s, today the U.S. ruling class is actually encouraging the modern-day Hitlerites in Moscow in their aggressive moves against various countries.
The two superpowers are at each other’s throats, contending particularly over Europe, as well as Africa, the Mideast, Asia and Latin America. The USSR, which is the newcomer to the imperialist feast, is trying to replace the U.S. as top-dog in the world of exploiters and oppressors. Being unable to compete with the U.S.’s overwhelming economic superiority, the USSR must resort to war or naked force to become the dominant force in the capitalist world.
The U.S. ruling circles, in turn, want to stay on top. Using the strategy of buying time to build up their forces for a new world war, they are trying to divert the Soviet drive away from themselves and towards China or to placate the social-imperialists in hopes that they will be temporarily satisfied.
Make no mistake about it, appeasement of Soviet aggression in Czechoslovakia, Zaire, Angola or the African Horn in no way indicates a change in the character of U.S. imperialism in the direction of isolationism or pacificism. Rather, it is just as expansionist and oppressive and reactionary as ever. The only difference is that now it has been weakened through a series of defeats in Korea, Indochina and elsewhere and is in a relatively defensive position, whereas the USSR is on the offensive.
In response to this offensive, the main U.S. imperialists are following along the lines of Chamberlain and Daladier and practicing policies reminiscent of the 1938 Munich Agreement.
One example can be seen in the “Sonnenfeldt Doctrine,” which was promoted in 1975 by the former Sec. of State Henry Kissinger. Kissinger put forward this doctrine in a speech given by his assistant, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, dealing with U.S. policy towards Eastern Europe.
“The Soviets’ inability to acquire loyalty in Eastern Europe is an unfortunate historical failure,” Sonnenfeldt said, “because Eastern Europe is within their scope and area of natural interest.”
Here Sonnenfeldt was actually dividing the supposedly sovereign countries of Europe into two separate “spheres of influence.” The U.S., he claimed, should recognize the right of the USSR to dominate Eastern Europe, even in the face of the growing revolts in Poland and other countries and the rise of the dissident movements there. In exchange, Kissinger and his fellow appeasers hoped that Brezhnev and company would act like imperialist gentlemen and concede Western Europe to the U.S.
Immediately after its publication, the Sonnenfeldt speech came under heavy fire both at home and across Europe. It was correctly seen by many as a sign of the superpowers’ desire to carve up “spheres of influence” in Europe and elsewhere.
Another form of appeasement today comes in the economic field. Economic appeasement of the Soviet Union is put forward by members of the Carter administration such as Cyrus Vance, Juanita Kreps and Michael Blumenthal, who claim that loans and trade to the USSR will build a so-called “material basis”, for “peaceful-cooperation” and the “prevention of war.”
Just as those who appeased Hitler and the Japanese fascists gave them a boost by extending aid and loans and selling them war materials, so are the present-day appeasers giving the Brezhnev gang a shot in the arm. The Soviet Union, despite its wild ambitions, doesn’t presently have the strength it needs to carry out its plans.
So monopolists like Henry Ford, for example, have “helped out” by building the largest truck plant in the world on the Kama River, which can produce all the necessary vehicles for a modern invasion force. Remember, Ford is one of the imperialists who gave financial aid to the Hitlerites.
The Soviet revisionists have brought on grave economic problems in their country with a high, disproportionate amount of their gross national product going into militarization. The West has come to Moscow’s rescue by extending massive loans at low interest rates. The Bank for International Settlements disclosed that the USSR owed the West more than $26 billion in 1976, nearly 17 times the 1970 figure.
The U.S. monopolists have also been supplying grain to the USSR at the rate of more than 83 million tons in 1972-73 alone. This has enabled the social-imperialists to overcome their huge grain shortage, and also to strengthen their reserves, thus providing favorable conditions for their military buildup.
In the past six years, the West has exported more than S15 billion worth of sophisticated equipment and technology to the USSR. Most recently, President Carter approved the sale of a $144 million oil-drilling plant to the Russians by the Texas-based Dresser Industries. This sale includes a newly-developed drill bit based on the laser-beam, which experts say will definitely be used for military purposes.
Finally, through negotiations and conferences such as the 1975 Helsinki summit meeting and the present SALT talks, the U.S. imperialists are making it possible for the Soviet Union to advance its war preparations at an even faster rate than the U.S. itself.
In the past decade, since the beginning of SALT, the arms race between the two superpowers has not dwindled in the least, but rather has increased at a mad pace. In particular the Soviet Union has caught or surpassed the U.S. in all the most important areas of strategic weaponry. Since the USSR is the most aggressive superpower and the main source of a new world war, this advantage will only encourage war and not stop it.
This political appeasement could be clearly seen in statements made by Carter and his closest aides, such as Andrew Young, who have repeatedly defended the Soviet-Cuban role in Africa. In a Reader’s Digest article last year, for example, Carter said: “The Cuban troops are a stabilizing force in Angola to the extent that, while there, they preserve the present government in its control over at least part of Angola. They maintain the status quo.”
Another important example of appeasement has been U.S. stalling on implementation of the Shanghai Communique and normalization of relations with China. The appeasers are afraid that steps toward normal relations with China will “offend” Brezhnev and “upset detente.” Of course, this appeasement policy also coincides with the most reactionary colonial policies towards Taiwan, since ending support for the Taiwan regime is a prerequisite to any normalization move.
From these examples we can see that appeasement plays an economic and political role in stepping up the contention between the two superpowers and pushing the world towards war.
* * *
Next we will examine the theoretical questions involved in fighting appeasement. We will look at the positions of the revisionists, Trotskyists, and various opportunists such as the RCP who either promote such appeasement or else deny altogether the significance of the anti-appeasement struggle.
(To be continued)