After about ten days of hesitation and aimless probing, Mr. Mao Tsê-tung, as the head of the Party, issued a lengthy talk entitled "On the Present International Situation and the War of National Resistance," in the form of a catechism in which the questions are asked by a news reporter. In the first section, he explained the German-Soviet Pact; in the second, he predicted the future development of international affairs, in the third he discussed the future of China. His aim in publishing this article is to pacify the agitated hearts of his fellow Communists. But since it is made public, we have the liberty of discussing it, especially so since the Communists themselves have the same habit and they also emphasize free speech. I hope they will not be irritated.
II. Is the German-Soviet Pact Casual?
Mr. Mao seems to take it for a treaty that has been signed "all of a sudden." Now this is quite untrue if we consider the facts.
Many periodicals and newspapers have published articles proving that the Pact was long-planned. We shall not consider them. We shall not even consider the original friendship between Germany and monarchic Russia. But we must remember how Germany brought Lenin back to Russia in a sealed train, how the formation of the Red Army was based upon German plans, and the fact that Germany established an aviation school in Russia. We see how Germany helped the Russian Soviet Revolution to succeed. I often think that if we trust the words of a country's foreign minister and the slogans the people shout to provide us an outline of the country's foreign policy, we end in the position of buying goods upon reading an advertisement. In the end we will find ourselves cheated. In fact shops which are "liquidating" their goods may sell their goods at an even higher price than in an ordinary sale. A more reliable way of observation is to judge the policy by studying the secret tendencies in the actions of high military and economic organs which are essential in national defense. If we believe in slogans alone, we might as well ask a salesman about the curative power of his patent medicine. In reality, the salesman is a mere hireling. What pharmacist discloses his real formula and method of combinations? Hence, to probe into the real relation between the two countries, we must ask the smaller nations between them; these make the closest observations.
For two years, these small states have been expecting this treaty. The question of "which to side with" gives them sharp suffering which has made them all the more sensitive. They know what the two countries have been planning when they see so many secret delegates coming and going very busily. Within the last two years, observers in Europe and America have also predicted cooperation between Germany and Soviet Russia. Even in China, did not Mr. Chiang Po-li write an essay to this effect, warning the Chinese people? According to them, the slogans shouted in both countries are strange diplomatic weapons; like the masques worn in a Greek play, they do not show the faces of the actors. When the Jewish Litvinoff went off the stage, it was the sign: "First Act Completed." Now the spectators who wear red glasses are still enchanted by the first act. Anyway, Mr. Mao's explanation that the Pact is a sudden one is unreasonable.
In China, many were doubting the National policy of independent struggle. Not until their "Soviet Help," "Single Alliance with Russia" essays had been erased by the recent coup, did the policy of independent struggle begin to shine in its brilliancy. At first our policy of independent foreign relations lost influence to the better-sounding slogan of "A united foreign front." After this lesson, we can perhaps see more clearly. Such a lesson to a political party not in power is a very wholesome admonition; had the party been in power, we know the damage which could have befallen the nation. Speaking with consideration, I also earnestly hoped for the success in the British-French-Soviet parleys because it would ensure safety in Europe by safeguarding all lesser states. Furthermore, it would help us also by checking Germany and Japan. But this was only a hope, and I seriously doubted its realization. The "united foreign policy front" advocated by the Communists is not too unreasonable; its error lies in stating with certainty the necessity of two international fronts. Some even acknowledged the existence of such a situation two years ago, and they forbade any doubt expressed to fellow-members concerning this point. Even a week prior to the signing of the Pact, they said with certainty that the rumor of such a Pact was a mere invention of Trotskyites and German spies. Such a ban on free speech is not only detrimental to the progress of a nation, but even to the Communists' own welfare. Their members will not only be made to look foolish, but they will even lose their faith by being called upon to change about. For the sake of our national intelligence, for the sake of the Communists themselves, I hope that in the future, such bans will be lifted, thus encouraging freer and more reasonable ideas. I hope this appeal will do some good, even to the editors of their newspapers.
III. Why the German-Soviet Pact?
Concerning this Pact, Mao Tsê-tung used words like "reactionary," "Capitalistic," "intrigue," etc., about Great Britain and France. On the other hand, he employed words like "great" (to be added "talented" if Ch'ên Shao-yü were to write it), "increasing the power," "more progressive," etc., about Soviet Russia. In the end, he even used the phrase "have laid the foundation for the world's oppressed people to seek for liberty and emancipation." All right! The term does not sound ugly, and to ensure better Sino-Soviet relations, we may leave it at that. But under the present state of affairs, too many attacks directed against Chamberlain and Daladier are certainly not good. As a matter of fact, all this is like sending congratulations to Soviet Russia, and a letter of condolence to those with whom Soviet Russia is dissatisfied. All these are but social affairs, the only point is that in both the ideas are not too logically expressed. That's all!
Now if you look at the Pact in the same way that you look into a kaleidoscope, you can see as many meanings as you want, while turning the thing around. Basically, Germany's only reason for wanting this Pact is, as she has stated, to avoid the British encircling policy. The economic cooperation talked of by politicians can also give further meaning to the Pact. Recently, in the occupation of Danzig and Warsaw, the sound of guns is the wordless explanation. As to the plan of partitioning Poland and absorbing the Eastern European States (enclosed in a secret clause), we do not know yet. Let us for the time being not discuss it.
As to Soviet Russia, her effort at bettering her friendly relationship with China can be no better revealed than in Molotov's own speech. He said: "We have always been trying to increase the amity between the peoples of Germany and Russia. This Pact is important because it means that the two big Powers in Europe have decided to be friends and to live peacefully." Thus we can see that the Pact is not a casual happening. Molotov again says: "There are some who want to take advantage of the strained relationship between Great Britain and Germany.... Such people aim at involving Soviet Russia in a war against Germany by taking sides with Great Britain. How foolish these political speculators for war are!" Hence we know that the Pact was signed according to Soviet Russia's own will, and, unlike what Mao said, it was planned long ago, and not at all after the failure of the British-French-Soviet parleys. Now we only want those who advocate "united foreign policy front" to think of the meaning of words like "foolish" and "war speculators." These words are new compared with "retrograde," "stubborn," "Trotskyites," etc.