nauseating reading. Thus, Pravda of October 17 published an article by David Zaslavsky, an old hack, ironically a Jew, whom Lenin had once described as "the most corrupt pen in Russia":
In all seriousness, though scarcely able to suppress a smile, the French press has informed the world of a sensational piece of news. In Paris in such-and-such a street a new Polish Government has been formed, with General Sikorski at its head. The
territory of this government consists, it appears, of six rooms, a bathroom and a w.c.
Compared with this territory, Monaco is a boundless empire.
In the Great Paris Synagogue, Sikorski addressed the Jewish bankers of Paris. The Synagogue was adorned with a flag with a white eagle, which the Chief Rabbi must
have turned into kosher meat, since this is a bird that orthodox Jews do not, as a rule, use as food.
In former Poland, the Jews used to be frightened to death of the Polish nobility and of pogroms, but the Jewish bankers in Paris had, obviously, nothing to fear from
General Sikorski...
And more witticisms of the same kind; but not a word about the Nazis and Mr
Zaslavsky's own fellow-Jews in "former" Poland. The cartoons in the press were becoming increasingly anti-British and anti-French. Thus Kukryniksy published one
showing a "Capitalist" and a "Social-Democrat" locking a door marked "Democracy" and a "French Communist" peeping through the barred window. The Social-Democrat carried a shield marked "War for Democracy".
It was not till October 31 that Molotov made another speech before the Supreme Soviet—
this was the famous speech in which he welcomed the disappearance of Poland, "that monster child of the Treaty of Versailles" [A phrase for which, in retrospect, he was to be taken to task in vol. I of the official History of the War, published in 1960.], and declared that not Germany, but Britain and France were now the "aggressor" nations.
It was this speech which marked, as it were, the zenith of Soviet-German "friendship"
and "solidarity"; first it dealt with Poland: "The rulers of Poland used to make a great fuss over the 'soundness' of their State and the 'might' of their Army. A short blow at Poland from the German Army, followed by one from the Red Army was enough to reduce to
nothing this monster child of the Treaty of Versailles."
He then dealt with the British and French guarantees to Poland, and remarked "amidst general laughter" that "no one knew to this day what kind of guarantees these were". He noted that the war in the West had not yet developed.
"But the whole concept of 'aggression' has changed. Today we cannot use the word in the same sense as three or four months ago. Now Germany stands for peace, while Britain and France are in favour of continuing the war. As you see, the roles have been
reversed."
[Emphasis added.]
He even improved on this performance by going on:
Now Britain and France, no longer able to fight for a restoration of Poland, are
posing as "fighters for democratic rights against Hitler-ism". The British Government now claims that its aim is, no more, or no less, if you please, "the destruction of Hitlerism". So it's an ideological war, a kind of medieval religious war.
One may like or dislike Hitlerism, but every sane person will understand that
ideology cannot be destroyed by force. It is therefore not only nonsensical but also criminal to pursue a war "for the destruction of Hitlerism" under the bogus banner of a struggle for "democracy". And what kind of democracy is it, anyway, with the French Communist Party in jail?
It was only when dealing with the liberation of the Western Ukraine and Western
Belorussia that Molotov did drop something like a hint that Germany, after all, still constituted a potential danger to the Soviet Union: "Our relations with Germany have radically improved. We are neutral. But we could not remain neutral in respect of Eastern Poland, since this involved acute problems of our country's security. [Emphasis added.]
Moreover, the populations of Western Belorussia and the Western Ukraine had been left to their fate, and this we could not allow."
Since the incorporation of these territories in the Soviet Union, Molotov said, the
population of the country had grown by some thirteen million people, over seven million Ukrainians, three million Belorussians, one million Poles and one million Jews. The war against Poland had cost the Soviet Union 734 dead and 1,862 wounded; and the Red
Army had captured from the Poles 900 guns, 10,000 machine-guns, 300 planes, one
million shells, etc.
He then spoke of the mutual assistance pacts with the Baltic States and, indeed,
contended that these did not, in any way, constitute interference in their internal affairs.
This, however, did not end his diplomatic survey. Next on the list was Finland.
Leningrad, Molotov said, was only twenty miles from the Finnish frontier, and could thus be shelled from Finnish territory. Lately there had been all kinds of absurd rumours. The Soviet Union was supposed to have demanded from Finland the transfer of Viborg and of the north side of Lake Ladoga. This was a lie.
[Precisely the territory the Russians were eventually to annex.]
"Our demands are minimal. In our talks with Tanner and Paasi-kivi we proposed a mutual assistance pact on the lines of those signed with the other Baltic States. The Finns said they were neutral; so we did not insist. What we are asking for is only a small area of a few dozen kilometres north-west of Leningrad, in return for which we are willing to give them an area twice that size. We are also asking for a naval base at the western end of the Gulf of Finland. We have now a naval base at Baltiski in Estonia on the south side of the gulf; we want a similar base on the north side." Molotov argued that these demands were eminently reasonable, and regretted that the Finns were being difficult.
[From the Finnish point of view these Russian demands did not look as trivial as Molotov tried to suggest, and events were soon to show that the Finns had good grounds for
mistrusting Russia's intentions.]
He then briefly dealt with Japan, saying that between May and mid-September there had been heavy fighting in the Far East. Japan had wanted to annex a part of Mongolia; but if England's guarantee to Poland was a scrap of paper, the Soviet Union's guarantee to the Mongolian People's Republic was not. On September 15 peace had been restored
between Japan and the Soviet Union.
In conclusion he remarked that the United States Government had lifted its embargo on arms to belligerent nations, and this, he said, "aroused legitimate doubts". This complaint fitted, of course, the official line that not Germany, but Britain and France were now the
"aggressors". This argument was illustrated a few days later by another Kukryniksy cartoon in Pravda showing British and French generals and capitalists in top hats queuing up for armaments in front of "Uncle Sam's Bargain Basement".
Molotov's speech of October 31, 1939 marks the end of the first phase of the Soviet-
German "honeymoon". The recovery by the Soviet Union of Western Belorussia and the Western Ukraine— including some areas, such as Lwow, which had never been part of
the old Russian Empire—suggested to many Russians that, from a national point of view, the rapprochement with Nazi Germany could have some distinct advantages. It is true that all these annexations were mixed up with "acute problems of our country's security"