Mr. Davis

It strikes me that this is one of the most revolutionary (or do I mean counter-revolutionary?) statements I have ever heard from a reigning Soviet leader. The simple argument that Ameri-can businessmen know they can no longer profit from war knocks the bottom out of one of the staple Leninist-Stalinist arguments. According to the press he also said that he didn't find the American leaders talking about "containment" and "retaliation." What then of the imperialist threat which has been essential to Soviet policy since 1917?

It occurs to me that the effect of Truman's tough words³⁸⁹ might be to cause the Russians to revise any ideas they might have had about sitting things out till the Democrats came back. On the other hand, I don't think the Russians have ever considered Truman, Acheson, Harriman et al as promising friends as Dwight D.

What do your experts think?

J.W. H[OLMES]

[PIÈCE JOINTE/ENCLOSURE]

L'ambassadeur en Union soviétique
au secrétaire d'État aux Affaires extérieures

Ambassador in Soviet Union
to Secretary of State for External Affairs

TELEGRAM 51

Moscow, February 15, 1959

OPIMMEDIATE

Reference: Our Tel 50 Jan 31.?

MIKOYAN'S SPEECH AT CONGRESS

Mikoyan made a conciliatory speech on January 31 dealing mostly with his visit to the USA. The following are its main points.

2. World Situation - American government and business people listened to and understood Mikoyan's exposition of the Soviet position. They also tried to explain their own clearly and in detail and Mikoyan understood it. Mikoyan did not expect such warmth and interest from industrial leaders, and he felt their craving for peace. Americans knew how terrible war was, and the American businessmen knew that they could no longer profit from it. In talks with the government Mikoyan was told that American policy was unchangeable on international issues because it was a bipartisan policy and was worked out with foreign allies. The USSR need expect no repeat no change in this policy under a democratic government. Mikoyan was told by Harriman and a group of businessmen of both parties that they fully supported the government's position on Berlin and on disarmament.

3. Mikoyan said that after his departure from the USA many leaders tried to minimize the effect of his visit. Truman, who started the cold war, was worst, but Dulles, Nixon and others participated. Nixon, who had promised in conversation with Mikoyan that the USA would not interfere in the internal affairs of the socialist countries, said exactly the opposite in a subsequent speech. Mikoyan urged caution in reaching conclusions about the USA: there were still some who sought to prolong the cold war.

4. About foreign communist parties, he said that there was no control from Moscow, that if the USA feared communism, it feared only its own people.

5. Finally, Mikoyan reported that he had told Dulles that, in his opinion, the USA did not want war, but that the USSR was alarmed by USA bases around the Soviet Union, by military pacts with the Soviet Union's southern neighbours and by the rebirth of German militarism.

6. Trade - In his talks on trade, Mikoyan said that he had objected to strategic controls. He contrasted Soviet trade with the USA with its trade with other capitalist countries, blamed the USA for breaking the USA Soviet trade agreement, offered a new three, five or seven year trade agreement, stated that Soviet foreign trade would double by 1965, and assured the USA that the Soviet Union would conduct its foreign trade in accordance with international practice, and without dumping.

7. China - Mikoyan had assured the USA that there were no difficulties between the USSR and China, and that rumours of them were caused by hostile Yugoslav propaganda.

8. Internal Affairs - Mikoyan stated that the seven year plan would see a widening of democracy, and a reduction in the means of compulsion. Now there is no place here for the repression of citizens for political reasons. Force is necessary only at a certain stage of development.

9. Anti-Party Group - Mikoyan said that he had been asked in the USA whether renewed attacks on the Anti-Party Group did not mean that their influence continued. He had replied that it did not, that the group had not a single new member, and that the renewed attacks were merely to show the correctness of the position of the Central Committee.

³⁸⁸Note rédigée à la main./Handwritten note.

³⁸⁹Voir/See "Truman Willing to be a Senator," New York Times, December 9, 1958, pp. 1, 37.