Main NI Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From The New International, Vol. XI No. 2, March 1945, pp. 35–39.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
It is difficult for the average worker to understand what took place at Yalta and to assess at their true value the reports of Churchill and Roosevelt. If he is a militant trade unionist, with some years of experience behind him, he is, in normal times, sensitive enough to the wiles, tricks, bluff, cunning, brutality and unscrupulousness of capitalists in a strike struggle. When the struggle is removed to the political plane, the worker is likely to be deceived by the fact that the center of government is remote; appeals are made to him in the name of “the nation” and it is hard to see that the state does not act as mediator of conflicting interests and guardian of the welfare of all; it is hard to see that the same capital which wages relentless war against the worker in the process of production is the same capital which controls the state and uses the same bluff, cunning, unscrupulousness, tricks and deceptions, which it uses in the struggle over wages and conditions of labor: the class struggle has been merely transferred to a new plane.
It becomes still more difficult to pierce behind the veil of capitalist politics when it deals with what is called “foreign affairs.” But the same capital that oppresses the worker in the factory and bluffs him with talk about “the nation” in national politics, is the same capital which carries on its international competition, intrigues and maneuvers which periodically explode into wan The difference in its methods is one of degree, not of quality. Simply because the subjects of war, peace, international agreements, etc., are still further beyond the immediate knowledge and understanding of the average worker, there is. no limit to the lies, the frauds, the almost inconceivable brazenness with which the capitalist politicians deceive the people.
They do not deceive one another. Each of them knows quite well what the stakes are and how they are to be won. But because war imposes an unbearable strain upon the soldiers, sailors, airmen and war workers, the statesmen spare no pains to disguise their actual proceedings as acts of benevolence, inspired by love of humanity and what they call “enlightened” national interest. Every communiqué and every speech is wrapped around in so many lies and presented in such a dressing that only those trained and sharpened by long years of hostility to every phase and form of bourgeois society can make some penetration into the greed, the cruelty, the rottenness, the hypocrisy, that are hidden behind the exuberant oratory and the careful, precise phrasing of official documents.
In this sphere, no conference has exceeded Yalta. The New International has unweariedly made the class necessity of the capitalists the basis of its analysis of the war. We shall now use the Yalta Conference to show in concrete detail what these capitalist politicians are up to. We shall use their own words.
The legend is that Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill met at Yalta (a) to finish off Germany, the inveterate enemy of world peace; (b) to organize a new world structure so as to ensure lasting peace; (c) to settle the problems of liberated Europe so as to initiate a new era of well-being for the suffering and war-torn peoples.
All of it is lies. They met (a) to jockey for position in the scramble over the spoils of the war and to battle for positions so as to be well placed for the next war; (b) to organize a new world structure so that they could deceive the people with hopes of peace at last; (c) to ensure that they and they alone will have the whip-hand in the suppression and exploitation of the European people. We propose not to prove but to demonstrate this beyond any shadow of doubt by analysis of their own statements and relevant comments.
Power ruled at the conference – naked power. Stalin had made the Foreign Secretaries come to Moscow in preparation for the last conference. He made Roosevelt and Churchill come to Teheran – sixty miles from the Russian border. He made them come to Russian soil for this one. Such is the relationship between the powers. Even the site of a conference is decided by the victories of the armies. That is the only law they understand.
The years 1943 and 1944 have seen the astonishing emergence of Russia as a great military power. Its armies have swept over Eastern Europe from the Arctic to the Black Sea. They hold the territories they have conquered. Russia can be driven from its conquests only by force. And where is that force to come from today? Certainly not from the armies of Britain and the United States. Furthermore, Russia’s armies are still needed to clinch the German defeat. To a considerable degree Russia has now taken the place of Germany as the dominant European power.
But that was only one ace that Stalin held. He held another. Of the three powers at the conference, Russia is the only great Asiatic power in the world of today and of tomorrow. Britain’s India is seething with hostility to Britain. It lies at the end of thousands of miles of communication by sea. China is even further away from the United States. Ships, men, planes, tanks and guns have to be transported there. Industrialization as far as possible and training of adequate native armies will take years. They would also constitute a deadly threat to the very imperialist power which provides them. Siberian Russia, on the other hand, with its industries and its manpower, runs along the border of China. It faces Japan. Russia has a common border with India. Bourgeois Europe is already exhausted and is a shambles. When the European war is over, Russia, despite its losses, will be able to develop a substantial military power ready to intervene or to threaten in the Far East. The vastly superior economic power of the United States is handicapped by distance. So that Stalin did not have to say much at the conference. His power stared his rivals in the face. Roosevelt and Churchill knew exactly what they in Stalin’s place would do.
Russia held a third card. The Communist Parties in Europe could bring dangerous pressure upon any existing European government, might even overthrow it. Many millions in “Red” China occupied strategic positions and looked to Russia as guide and mentor. Even in Greece, Stalin could have made almost insurmountable trouble for British imperialism by inciting instead of restraining the ELAS and the EAM. He had refrained, in pursuit of his own interests. But if his interests were threatened, he could refuse to refrain.
Roosevelt, on the other hand, still had his own war to win against Japan. He had used Britain as an outpost to prevent the concentration of European power in the hands of one country – Germany. The result had been the impending defeat of Germany, but with Russian power substituted for German power. This was the hard reality. He had no force at present with which to challenge Stalin, for a war against Russia was politically out of the question now.
Churchill was in much the same position as Roosevelt except that Roosevelt represented the tremendous power of American imperialism and Churchill represented a Britain in a strategically impossible situation, its Empire in decline, its economy backward, its resources wasted in war, dependent upon the United States despite its conflicts with it.
Such roughly were the forces at the conference. The European liberated countries were not represented there. Their fate was being decided but they had no power, so they weren’t even asked. No. Only power sat down at the conference table and power, which, at the moment, was (roughly) represented as we have outlined it. One conclusion flows from this. The decisions, such as they were, were the result of the force each represented, modified by the opposing forces.
We do not deny the influence of personality in history. But the idea that Roosevelt’s personality or Stalinist “realism” or the experience that comes from having worked together, or, growing confidence, altered the major lines of decision is all smoke-screen to deceive the people. What was decided was decided by force. What was not decided was left open to be decided by the relationship of forces at a later stage.
But these three gentlemen were acutely conscious of a third force, invisibly present at the conference. That force was the people of Europe, of Asia, and the people whom they had left at home. Every decision or avoidance of decision had to be dressed up to make a favorable appearance before the people, to encourage them to fight on, to still their doubts, to keep their hopes alive. Such was the game at the conference. Such is it now.
Take Germany, the key to the conference, as it is to every conference. The conference laid down a list of fearful penalties to be imposed upon Germany. The conference declared that the powers had come to agreement about Germany which would be disclosed later. Lies for the most part. Read the declaration. The terms will be imposed “after German resistance has been finally crushed.” To anyone who knows these slick artists that finally sounds a trifle odd. Observe then the very
next sentence: “These terms will not be made known until the final defeat of Germany has been accomplished.” A little further down they say that they will take “in harmony such other measures ... as may be necessary to the future peace,” etc., etc. They promise to “remove or destroy” all German military equipment. Who will remove what? Will it be done “in harmony”? They promise to “eliminate or control all German industry which could be used for military production.” Who will eliminate, who will control what, and will it be done “in harmony”? Nobody knows. They themselves do not know.
Behind these apparently innocuous sentences is hidden a deadly conflict. Who will control Germany? Only power will decide. That’s why everything waits until the final, so final, defeat of German armed resistance.
Why should the future control of Germany be so important? The bourgeois commentator, Walter Lippmann, told us why even before the Conference concluded. He wrote that THE problem of the Conference was whether Britain and the United States would control Germany for use in a future war against Russia, or whether Russia would control Germany in a future war against Britain and the United States, or whether they could come to some agreement.
Departing from his usual urbanity, this always well-informed writer apologized for putting the thing so crudely; but if he softened it, people might not realize the seriousness of the situation.
Stalin, we should note, came with his well-publicized Free German Committee in reserve. It could become another Lublin Government, to be used against both the German revolution and his dear but treacherous allies. That problem is not settled yet. If ever the powers destroy German industry, Germany can always be rearmed. It depends upon who does the rearming. So far Stalin has not lost anything. He appears to have given up the Free German Committee (but it is still there). Instead he has got, among other things, that the question of German reparations will be discussed in Moscow. There the matter rests.
When Roosevelt returned home he walked very carefully around the German question. The New York Herald Tribune of March 2 commented on his speech as follows:
In his discussion of the proposed treatment of Germany, the President shows himself a good deal more sensitive than either Mr. Churchill or Mr. Stalin seems to be to the dangers of too Draconian an attitude. He is careful to describe the proposed occupation as “temporary”; he emphasizes the fact that unconditional surrender “does not mean the destruction or enslavement of the German people,” but only the destruction of militarism and Nazism; he speaks only of ending Germany’s “production of armament,” which is a little different from the Yalta phrase, “all industry that could be used for military production,” and in illustrating the meaning of “reparations in kind” he speaks of plants, machinery, materials and rolling stock but does not mention labor.
The Conference claims that it will punish the German rulers but not enslave the German people. In reality, while some outstanding leaders will be punished, German capital, the basis of German rule, will be fought over while the masses of the German people will, as far as the powers are concerned, bear the burdens of the peace.
Few know these big powers as well as do the small ones. A dispatch from London, published on the same day as the report of the Yalta Conference gave their expert opinion:
What it all amounts to, in the view of several small governments in London, is that the big powers have usurped sovereignty over all Europe and have accepted jointly the responsibility of running it at least until they fall out among themselves – an eventuality against which they have sought to protect themselves by establishing a machinery for continuing the alliance after Germany has been beaten. The cynical view is that, faced with a common enemy, they have postponed crucial decisions because none of them wishes to face them at the present, when Germany’s defeat is priority No. 1 among them all.
Absolutely correct. As soon as Germany is defeated the smouldering disagreement about the future of Germany will begin to crackle.
Roosevelt did not fight Hitler for Stalin’s benefit. He did not fight Hitler for the benefit of the enslaved peoples of Europe. Stalin has seized all he aims at in Eastern Europe. The battle for the new Germany is still to be fought. Roosevelt, therefore had at least to establish his position in Western Europe. The main enemy there is the aspirations of the masses of the people. Roosevelt had to make clear that in the future (behind the cover of establishing democratic governments and “free elections”) the United States was going to be as much master as was Stalin in the East of Europe. He did so with no uncertain hand.
The Declaration on Liberated Europe starts off with gaudy pleasures about democratic rights for the liberated peoples of Europe. Then Roosevelt got down to business.
“To foster the conditions which the liberated peoples may exercise these rights, the three governments will jointly assist the people in any European liberated state or former Axis satellite state in Europe where in their judgment conditions require ...”
This is familiar language. They, these three powers, will in their judgment decide whether conditions demand their assistance.
Assistance for what?
“A, to establish conditions of internal peace.”
So now we know! Who previously took upon himself to decide whether conditions in any country required his intervention to establish internal peace? Who but that deservedly hated and abused tyrant, Adolf Hitler?
The Big Three serve notice on the European workers to keep themselves quiet in their hovels or be forcibly dealt with.
Section C is as follows: “... to form interim governmental authorities broadly representative of all democratic elements in the population ...”
And so that everyone will have no doubt as to what is intended, the Declaration says: “The three governments will consult the other United Nations and provisional authorities or other governments in Europe where matters of direct interest to them are under consideration.”
That is one place at least where their democratic imperialism is superior to fascism. They will consult the authorities before they intervene. That is democracy for you.
The emphasis on their authority is stated again and again.
“When, in the opinion of the three governments, conditions in any European liberated state or any former Axis satellite state in Europe make such action necessary, they will immediately consult together on the measures necessary to discharge the joint responsibilities set forth in this declaration.”
The gangster-like menace of the Declaration can be seen in its last paragraph. France is a liberated state, but the Declaration makes France subject to intervention whenever these three decide upon it. De Gaulle has been demanding all sorts of privileges, getting little but trying hard to detract the attention of the French people from their internal problems by posing as the rebuilder of a strong France. In their statement on Germany, the three powers offered France a share in the occupation “if she should so desire.” Take it or leave it.
But now after warning France that they will intervene in her affairs as ruthlessly as in the affairs of Greece or Rumania, they again offer de Gaulle a share of the loot if he will come in. “In issuing this Declaration, the three powers express the hope that the provisional government of the French Republic may be associated with them in the procedure suggested.” France is the most powerful of the liberated nations. She and she alone can attempt to lead a coalition of resistance. She is hereby warned again. Come in on our terms or take the consequences.
Stalin has established himself in Eastern Europe. Roosevelt now prepares to subordinate Western Europe to his own control. He will use relief (promised in the Declaration) but he will use American economic power and (if necessary) American arms.
With the Declaration in one hand and American capital (and relief) in the other, Roosevelt proposes to do for Western Europe what Stalin has done for Eastern. The European governments, terrified by their economic bankruptcy and in fear of their own rebellious people, fear even to put up a squeak.
So that the great war to prevent the domination of the European continent by one power ends in its proposed domination by two, one of them not European at all. The great war to free the European nations from alien tyranny ends in proposals for a new tyranny.
The shamefulness of it! The cold-blooded use of the most generous sentiments of the American people, the expenditure of their strength and the blood of their sons, the ballyhoo about liberating Europe for freedom and democracy and now, this, the open determination to enchain them once more for the benefit of Russian and American imperialism.
The Declaration talks about doing all this until the “free promised elections” are over. But in his report to Congress, Roosevelt added yet another ferocious rider. Once there had been a “free expression of the people’s will,” then “our immediate responsibility ends ...” Ends? No, sir! “With the exception only of such action as may be agreed upon in the international security organization,” which will be dominated by these three powers.
In his long report to the Commons, Churchill left this question of the liberated countries alone, except for Italy and Greece. He prudently emphasized that he and Roosevelt were working together, hand in hand in Italy. Roosevelt came away from Yalta with his sphere of influence clearly defined. Churchill had hoped that he would be able to establish Britain along the Atlantic seaboard. Naturally he still hopes to do so. But what can he offer? Relief? Economic rehabilitation? He can do neither. Politically he ruined his European influence by his actions in Greece. Here we may note how Roosevelt helped him. As Leland Stowe has shown, Roosevelt gave him American transport planes to take in British soldiers when Britain and its Greek satellites were losing in Athens. But at the same time Roosevelt took care to discredit Churchill by having Stettinius, guardedly but unmistakably, denounce the intervention. It is in this way that the Conference prepared and envisages its further plans for the “liberation” of Europe.
We do not propose to analyse the actual declaration of the Conference on Poland. Its terms are familiar, and what it means, where it came from and where it is going can be clearly demonstrated from a far more revealing document, Churchill’s speech.
This representative of British imperialism, who slumps lower in his chair and looks more miserable at every succeeding conference, faced a Herculean task in explaining the Polish decision to the British people.
The European war had begun, be it remembered, by Britain declaring war on Germany to protect the independence of Poland, Churchill and British imperialism care as much about Poles and their hopes for the futures as they care about the wishes and desires of Bolivians or Koreans. But Britain could not afford to see Germany spread itself over Europe by incorporating Poland. Now the terrible fact was that Poland would be incorporated from the East, by Russia. And Britain was in no position to start another war to prevent this. Churchill understood the harsh, the bitter fact of Stalin’s present power. He understood also the fears of his imperialist followers; and the resentment of the British people at the old power politics reappearing so starkly even before this devastating war was over. He therefore began his speech by a most extraordinary procedure. His very first words were:
“The recent conference in the Crimea faced realities and difficulties in so exceptional a manner that the results constitute an act of state on which Parliament should formally express its opinion.
“The government feel that they have a right to know where they stand with the House of Commons ...
“The House should not shrink from its duty of pronouncing.”
He had drafted a resolution and he made it a question of confidence in his government. Why should the House “shrink” from pronouncing? Why this threat to the House to support him or take the consequences? Obviously because Britain had been routed at Yalta. Future decisions on Europe’s fate were no longer in Britain’s hands as during some two hundred years of European history. Churchill knew that nothing else could have been done and so he took the unusual step of calling the decisions “an act of state” and demanding that all accept them. It is many, many d,ecades since a British statesman has faced such a problem. Four years ago Churchill called upon the British people to fight in such a way that if the Empire lived a thousand years men would say that this was their finest hour. They responded. And what has been the result? Today, with victory in sight, the Empire faces the darkest future in its history for over a century and a half.
We do not propose to weary our readers with the historical lies and falsifications with which Churchill tried to justify the “Curzon Line.” What is more important is that on more than one occasion he had to declare: “I repudiate and repulse any suggestion that we are making a questionable compromise or yielding to force or fear.” But that is precisely what he had to do.
The great problem was: Would there be free and democratic elections in Poland? And here the world was treated to the farcical spectacle of hearing a British Prime Minister asking the House of Commons “How will phrases like ‘Free and unfettered elections on the basis of universal suffrage and secret ballot’ be interpreted?”
Is there any jackass in any part of Western Europe, or for that matter, in any part of the civilized world, which could not bray out the answer that even in bourgeois society free and unfettered elections and universal suffrage mean elections that are free and unfettered, that universal suffrage means suffrage for everybody and that a secret ballot means balloting in secret? Why, then, does Churchill make such a colossal ass of himself by questioning the House of Commons, so proud of its democratic history and traditions, on this very question? Because, of course, as his hearers knew, Stalin’s promise of free elections meant elections that were free so long as he could get his own way in Poland. And that way meant the domination of Poland by Russia. The war had been fought, among other reasons to maintain British influence in Europe. Now, that influence seemed to depend on whether Stalin would allow the Poles to vote freely. Not a single member of Parliament but knew that this was the real issue. A fascist Poland, devoted to Britain, Churchill would have defended as vigorously as he has defended Franco and Mussolini.
This accounts for the ridiculous spectacle Churchill made of himself and the House of Commons on this occasion, so important for their beloved but exhausted Empire.
“What,” he asked, are “democratic parties”? This becomes suddenly one of the philosophical problems of the age. “People,” he said, “always take different views on that.” He spewed forth some more casuistic muck. Then once more raised his voice in agony. “What,” he asked again, “are democratic parties?” Then he answered the question himself. “Obviously that is capable of being settled.” But who would settle it, that was the problem. To that problem everybody knew the answer so far. So Churchill (how pitiable a figure is this) could only ask God and man yet once more: “Will the elections be what we should say was free and fair in this country, making some allowance for the great disorder and confusion which prevail?”
Then came a masterpiece of obfuscation, confusion and evasion. “These are questions upon which we have the clearest views in accordance with the principles of the declaration on liberated Europe to which all three governments have subscribed.” We have seen what that declaration says and what it means. It would affect the Polish people – not Stalin.
But, having made the best case he could, Churchill then spoke some words which more than anything else show what Yalta represented and the future that faces the world. We recommend them to our readers, for Churchill here, as so often, spoke with the freedom of desperation.
”I decline absolutely to embark here upon a discussion about Russian good faith. It is quite evident that these matters touch the whole future of the world. Terrible, indeed, would be the fortunes of mankind if some awful schism arose between the Western democracies and the Russian people, if all future world organizations were rent asunder and a new cataclysm of inconceivable violence destroyed what is left of the treasures and liberties of mankind.”
How could any man say more clearly that all those who thought they knew better than he what democracy and free elections should mean in Poland, should bear in mind what this fanaticism on their part would lead to.
The New International has repeatedly stated that Stalin’s real aims in Poland were imperialist, to seize that country and rule it. What particular forms that rule might take, what concessions, if any, he made at Yalta rest on the fact that he now controls the country. His main enemy, the organized Warsaw proletariat, he was careful to throw into the jaws of the German army, where it was destroyed. For the rest, the GPU is now busy preparing to make the proposed elections as free as possible by physically destroying all opposition. Then, in the typical manner that Stalin has so often used inside Russia, they will be able to declare that Poland was united as
never before. There may be changes in form. Imperialist clashes may cause Stalin to change his plans, either by a genuine modification of the government (with power still in his own hands, of course) or by still more drastic control of Poland than he envisages at present. Revolutions in Europe, the resistance of the Polish people, can alter the balance of forces. One thing, however, remains certain. No free and unfettered elections will take place. No votes, free or unfree, will alter the fate of Poland. To believe that is to sink even below the level of Churchill as he stood before the House of Commons and (may the moment live in history) solemnly asked: What is a free election?
We should not underestimate Churchill. It was the situation of British imperialism that put the clown’s cap on his head. His recognition of the bleak future is shown by this. To the Polish soldiers who were fighting for the independence of Poland he offered citizenship in the British Empire. No doubt the problem of what was a free election would be easier settled in Britain than in Poland.
The question of the world organization cannot conveniently be treated here. In a recent issue of the Saturday Evening Post, Edgar Snow has placed before the American people the sharpening imperialist lusts and jealous rivalries in the Far East. Roosevelt aims to establish himself in Western Europe and Southern China. Stalin is already in Eastern Europe and Northern China. Poland is lost to Roosevelt; the ruins of Germany remain to be fought over. There has been and will be hard bargaining over Russia’s role in the Japanese war. Force will decide.
Force will decide. Force alone decides. Once more is this demonstrated by the first sentence of the Yalta statement on Yugoslavia. France, we remember, was told to take it or leave it. The Polish government in exile was told the same. But Tito, ah! Tito enjoys the protection of Stalin. Therefore the conference proposals on Yugoslavia were introduced thus: “We have agreed to recommend to Marshal Tito and Dr. Subusitch ...” Tito did not attend the conference but he was represented there all right. An extra spicy ingredient in these maneuvers is provided by de Gaulle. While he spectacularly refused to meet Roosevelt, Churchill revealed that he had invited Bidault, de Gaulle’s Foreign Minister, to hear all about the conference, and Bidault had turned up. Thus de Gaulle can make his gestures to the French people as guardian of the dignity of a strong France (while the people starve); but at the same time his Foreign Minister carries on the intrigues with the other powers, based on power.
Yalta therefore did not lay the basis of world peace. Yalta did not mean the beginning of a new epoch of freedom for mankind. Yalta did not inaugurate a new stage of understanding between the Big Three. Yalta was a conference of imperialist politicians who settled their problems according to the forces that they control today and expect to control tomorrow. Its decisions were wrapped in a cloud of lies and falsification, but they are clear enough as far as they go. The bourgeois speeches and editorials which have followed the conference are of the same stamp – struggle for imperialist interests, representation of them, to the people as the beginning of a new world order which will repay them for all their sacrifices. But the people are not fooled. Reports from Britain tell us of the cynicism and the sense of inferiority which permeates the masses of the British people. The word cynicism should not be misinterpreted. In an individual it is often the prelude to abstention from politics. But the people cannot abstain. They have to live. Cynicism with them is but the preparatory stage to seeking a new way of life, for live they must and if not in the old way, then in a new one. The new way is socialism, the fraternal unity of the European peoples. For the British people, this problem is more urgent since Yalta. Trotsky, at the beginning of the World War, once used a phrase that the old ruling class rots on its feet. The British ruling class can no longer even pretend to itself to have a future. As Churchill ended his speech, premonition of doom and fear as to what next crept into it.
I suppose that during these last three winter months the human race all the world over have undergone more physical agony and misery than at any other period through which this planet has passed.
In the Stone Age, numbers were fewer and primitive creatures little removed from animal origin knew no better. We suffer more. We feel more. I must admit in this war I never felt so grave a sense of responsibility as I did at Yalta. In 1940 and 1941, when we in this island were all alone and invasion was so near, the actual steps we ought to take and our attitude toward them seemed plain and simple.
Now we enter into a world of imponderables, and at every stage self-questioning arises. It is a mistake to look too far ahead. Only one link in the chain of destiny can be handled at will.
Despite his personal resilience, he is old and tired. He paid a significant tribute to Eden, but if and when Eden succeeds him, he will be found to be old and tired too. The age and the fatigue are not in birth certificates or in their arteries. It is in the senile Empire which they represent.
The British people must read the writing on the wall. British labor will have to recognize that the only power which can save it is its own power in a socialist Britain; the only European combination on which it can depend for safety henceforth is a combination of the workers of Europe, the Russian workers included. For the masses of the British people, the independence of Poland is a vital necessity but it is an independence which can be gained only by uncompromising struggle against both Churchill and Russia, not by sticking one’s nose in the air and bleating “What is a free election?”, not by allowing Stalinism to multiply its influence over Europe, and not by listening quietly to the fears and terror and hopelessness which now are creeping on the British ruling class after the sacrifice of so much blood and wealth in the name of peace and security. Churchill and his labor lieutenants must go. They have nothing more to offer. That is the lesson of Yalta for the British workers.
And Yalta should prove a turning point in comprehension for the American workers, too. Their fate is involved. Roosevelt is now engaged in a desperate struggle for world mastery. No one can tell in what ways this will finally work out. But the conclusion is inevitable. Infinite blood, infinite tears, infinite destruction and at the end all will be to do again unless the workers break imperialist power. Yalta should be a landmark in the history of many an American worker, marking a stage where he turned away from the imperialist solution of international problems to the road of proletarian revolution.
Main NI Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 22 April 2016