Perhaps the greatest part of all in Molotov's speech is: "The Soviet Union will still continue to proceed in her own independent policy which is based upon the welfare of all Soviet Russian citizens." This corresponds exactly with our "Nation and country above all!" Sun Yat-sen also said that the success of the Soviet Russian October Revolution was based upon its ability to apply the laws concerning Nationalism. Leninism corrects Marxism by adding the idea of Nationalism. And Stalinism intensifies Leninism by an even greater emphasis laid on Nationalism. Hence we can say what the Soviet Revolution adopted was Leninism, and that what the Soviet Union is now adopting is Stalinism. The success of Lenin and Stalin is largely due to this reason. This Pact between Germany and Soviet Russia is but the fruit borne out of the principle "national welfare above all." The Soviets believe "The Soviet Government above all." Now what should we in China have?
As for Mr. Mao's reasons concerning the failure of the Three-Power Parley, the explanation he gives is just a reduced and "Chinafied" copy of the Soviet explanation concerning this problem. We can also say it is abridged. Mr. Mao always "Chinafies" things. I am sorry that this article has not been "Chinafied" (much to his distaste, I suppose) so its power must be weaker.
IV. A Discussion on the "New Front" as Made in a Chinese Story-Teller's Way
The manner in which Mr. Mao discussed the question resembles that of a Chinese story-teller, though his speech is less vivid. When he spoke of the "future development of the present international situation," it was like talking to a class of naive schoolboys who are always credulous.
He said that the present state of affairs in Europe was caused by the policy of non-intervention. The Second Imperialistic War has already entered the second stage. This is a war of plunder, not a rightful one. Concerning the East, he also made a vain distinction. He said the present state of affairs in China is also a new stage. No other explanation was given. We suppose he is always careful in expressing his ideas, so that if necessary he will have plenty of chances to make a shift. He divided the imperialistic nations into several camps: Germany and Italy belong to the Fascist[2] camp; Great Britain and France belong to the Fascistic[3] camp; the Americas under the U. S. are a capitalistic camp. As to Soviet Russia, she is presumably in another world. Mr. Mao said that she would cooperate with the U. S. to start the world's peace movement. Besides these, there were numerous tales as enchanting as the Arabian Nights. The most important ones: in Europe, a war on the entire front, and the movement planned by English and French Communists and Social Democrats to overthrow the Fascist regime; in the East, British policy was to partition China between herself and Japan. According to him, these are "present" situations, and if we take into consideration his manner of speaking, we can almost say that they meant the "actual" position at present.
His chess-board analysis of international situations resembles his former "front" theory—perhaps it is his new front theory. His aim, we believe, is to cheat his spectators. Being ignorant of the real situation, he was at first dumbfounded. Now he tries to move our attention to other things, just like a magician at work, who needs a band to create enough noise to shift the audience's attention. We should be considerate, knowing his difficulties. But I suppose such a manner of doing things does not increase the reputation of the Chinese Communists, does it?
In fact, if any one of the following events occurs, his new front will immediately be shattered: 1. Soviet Russia also adopts a non-intervention policy; 2. Italy keeps herself aloof or joins the side of the Allies; 3. A sufficiently large number of European states remain neutral; 4. America cooperates with Great Britain; America or any country in America declares war against Germany; 5. Great Britain does not help Japan in dividing up China; 6. Soviet inclination to sign treaty with Japan is revealed; etc., etc. I believe anyone who has sufficient knowledge of international relations will know that the error in the old "front" theory lies in its presumption that countries of the same systems of government will tend to unite against those of another system. The new front theory is based upon the presumption that the central motivating ideas of different countries will form the basis of separating them between two hostile fronts. This is an even more mistaken conception than the first. It is built on sand. It is easy to teach such a rigidly formulated doctrine of "hostile fronts" but in case they meet with a really intelligent and well-informed member, they will be certainly at a loss. Hence as a matter of fact, such authoritative articles do more harm than good. Mr. Mao has written a great deal since the war for publication; if we now connect all these articles together for a thorough study, we can find numerous places where he is dropping a stone upon his own toe. In fact such a chess-board analysis of the international situation is based upon materials gotten from the G. P. U. plus some "judgment" derived accidentally. As a matter of fact, such G. P. U. reports are unreliable down to the last word. The work of the G. P. U. is to pay special attention in getting the past record of a man or organ important in a given country.
When required, some high-sounding or bad names are added to the personality so as to strengthen the mood of speech in propaganda literature. So somebody even said: "If you wish to follow the propaganda methods of the Communist Party, observe two dogs barking in the street. After due observation you should analyze their points of difference. You should be able to speak like this: This is a dog infused with British, French, American, German or Japanese imperialistic ideas. He is stubborn, retrograde, reactionary, capitalistic, Fascist, and in danger of being a Trotskyite traitor or a person like Wang Ch'ing-wei. Now the other is a Soviet Socialistic dog, talented, progressive, belonging to the world of light, a supporter of world peace, a dog who sides with the poor and oppressed."
In fact how can confused international situations be so simply analyzed by a mere figure drawn on a chess-board? Unless all their members are mechanical men deprived of the power of thinking, they will have their own doubts, especially when Mr. Mao has repeatedly dropped stones on his own toe. The more he shouts the correctness of his views, or the success of his work, the more he will be a laughing-stock to the people. He will be the Don Quixote of China, or Ah-Q,[4] to be ridiculed by all. Yet in fact, there is no necessity for him to make these comments, and such methods of talking without material basis are usually avoided by politicians, especially when they are in service or partly in service. For example, Molotov spoke very cleverly on the Pact: after giving a historical explanation of the necessities for signing the Pact, he concluded, almost carelessly, by saying: "When Germany showed her willingness to improve the friendship between the two countries, Soviet Russia certainly had no reason to refuse. Hence the Pact is made." Besides, he talked of the welfare of the nation, as if to give a further proof of the necessity in signing the Pact. How clever his manipulations are! But the same thing under Mr. Mao's pen becomes a series of hot-faced scoldings, now praising A, then cursing B. And concerning his doctrine that the German-Soviet Pact is caused by the failure of the British-French-Soviet parleys, he expounded and expounded his reasons and proof, only to lead himself into greater confusion, so that fewer will believe him. Now comparing these two events, this will be very detrimental to the Communists, who find it difficult to give a satisfactory explanation. Even from a rhetorical point of view, no matter how Mao curses the British non-intervention policy, no matter how he curses this policy as the reason for Japanese invasion of China, for German occupation of Austria, Czechoslovakia, no matter how he condemns the Munich Meeting, any reader will correspondingly ask: Is Soviet Russia also adopting the policy of non-intervention? How about Poland? What is the difference between the Munich Meeting and the German-Soviet Pact? All these questions will produce the exactly opposite effect in the minds of the readers as that which was wished for by Mao. This is but one point. If we go on to have a closer analysis, we see that Mr. Mao's art of speaking needs more practice. As to his material proof in his article, up to date [September 15, 1939], the Soviet attitude is still the sit-and-look attitude condemned by him, as being the result of non-intervention policy; the countries proclaiming their neutrality are quite numerous; Italian attitude is yet uncertain; the British Communist Party is declaring that full confidence is placed in Chamberlain; the French Communists are on the front to fight for their motherland and the Third International has now no power over them. On the other hand, there are rumors concerning a rapprochement between Japan and Soviet Russia. All these only tend to disprove the sayings of Mr. Mao.