Glimpses of World History

by Jawaharlal Nehru

  War was averted for the time being, and a great feeling of relief spread among the peoples of all countries. But the price paid for this was the shame and dishonour of France and England, a terrible blow to democracy in Europe, the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, the end of the League of Nations as an instrument for peace, and a resounding triumph for naziism in central and south-eastern Europe. And the peace that had been purchased was an armistice during which every country armed feverishly for the war to come.

  The Munich Agreement was a turning-point in Europe and world history. A new division of Europe had begun, and the British and French Governments had ranged themselves openly on the side of naziism and fascism. Britain hastened to ratify the Anglo-Italian Agreement, recognizing the Italian conquest of Abyssinia and giving Italy a free hand in Spain. A four-Power pact between England, France, Germany, and Italy began to take shape, a common front against Russia and the democratic forces in Spain and elsewhere.

  Russia: It is remarkable that during all these years and months of intrigues and the breaking of solemn pledges by great Powers, Soviet Russia consistently honoured her international obligations, stood for peace and against aggression, and to the last did not desert her ally Czechoslovakia. But England and France ignored her and made friends with the aggressors, and even Czechoslovakia, betrayed by France and England, fell into the Nazi orbit and put an end to her alliance with Russia. Czechoslovakia has been split up, and Hungary and Poland, like hungry vultures, have profited by the occasion. Internally also there have been great changes and Slovakia claims autonomy. The remains of Czechoslovakia function now almost as a German colony.

  Thus the foreign policy of the Soviet Union has received a severe setback. And yet it stands today as a powerful, and as the only effective, barrier in Europe and Asia to fascism and the anti-democratic forces. For Russia, though ignored in recent months by England and France, is today a mighty Power. The first Five Year Plan met with general success, though it failed in particulars, especially in regard to the quality of the goods produced. There were untrained mechanics, and transport also largely failed. The concentration on heavy industry led to shortage of goods for consumption and to a lowering of standards. But this plan laid the foundations of future progress by rapidly industrializing Russia and collectivizing her agriculture. The second Five Year Plan (1933-1937) changed the emphasis from heavy to light industry, and aimed at getting rid of the deficiencies of the first plan and at producing consumers’ goods. Great progress was made, and the standards of life went up, and are continually going up. Culturally and educationally, and in many other ways, the advance all over the Soviet Union has been remarkable. Anxious to continue this advance and to consolidate its socialist economy, Russia consistently followed a peace policy in international affairs. In the League of Nations it stood for substantial disarmament, collective security, and corporate action against aggression. It tried to accommodate itself to the capitalist Great Powers and, in consequence, Communist Parties sought to build up “popular fronts” or “joint fronts” with other progressive parties.

  In spite of this general progress and development, the Soviet Union passed through a severe internal crisis during this period. I have already told you of the conflict between Stalin and Trotsky. Various people, dissatisfied with the existing regime, gradually drew together and it is said that some of them even conspired with the fascist Powers. Even Yagoda, the chief of the Soviet Intelligence (the G.P.U.), is stated to have been associated with these people. In December 1934 Kirov, a leading member of the Soviet Government, was murdered. The Government took stern action against its opponents, and from 1937 there were a series of trials which provoked great controversy all over the world, as many famous and prominent individuals were involved in them. Among those tried and sentenced were those who were called Trotskyites, and rightist leaders (Rykov, Tomsky, Bukharin), and some high army officers, the chief of whom was Marshal Tuchachevsky.

  It is difficult for me to express a definite opinion about these trials or the events that led up to them, as the facts are complicated and not clear. But it is undoubted that the trials disturbed large numbers of people, including many friends of Russia, and added to the prejudice against the Soviet Union. Close observers are of opinion that there was a big conspiracy against the Stalinist regime and that the trials were bona fide. It also seems to be established that there was no mass support behind the conspiracy, and that the reaction of the people was definitely against the opponents of Stalin. Nevertheless the extent of the repression, which may have hit many innocent persons also, was a sign of ill-health, and injured the Soviet’s position internationally.

  Economic Recovery: The great trade slump which began in 1930, and paralysed the capitalist world for several years, at last showed signs of improvement. There was partial recovery in most countries; in Britain recovery was more marked than elsewhere. The devaluation of the pound, tariffs, and the exploitation of Empire markets and resources helped Britain. The home market was developed by tariffs and subsidies and by agricultural reforms and organization of producers to reduce competition. An effort was made to plan production and wholesale distribution. Pressure was also brought to bear on Denmark and the Scandinavian countries to buy British goods.

  This recovery, though it was considerable, was at the expense of international trade. Thus it was only a relative and partial recovery. Real recovery depends on the revival of international trade. It should be remembered also that Britain has not paid, and does not intend to pay, her debt to America. The economic recovery is partly due to the intensive rearmament programmes of various countries. Such a recovery is obviously insecure and unstable. Mass unemployment still continues.

  The British Empire: But though England has tided over the economic crisis for the present, the British Empire is very sick, and the political and economic forces working for its disintegration grow stronger. Its rulers have even lost their faith in it and their hope in its continuance. They cannot solve their internal problems; India, intent on independence, grows ever stronger, little Palestine shakes them up. America, the great rival of England in the capitalist world, challenges British supremacy, and drifts farther away from England as the British Government inclines towards the fascist Powers. Soviet Russia successfully builds socialism, which is opposed to all imperialisms. Germany and Italy look with greedy eyes on the rich prize of the British Empire. The submission of England to their threats at Munich has led them to treat her almost as a second-class Power and to address her in arrogant language. England might have consolidated her position by an extension of democracy and by adhering to collective security. Instead she chose to abandon this and to support Hitler, and now British Imperialism is in a hopeless quandary, involved in the numerous contradictions that flow from the Munich policy.

  Colonies: Germany demands colonies now, and we are told that is a “have-not” and “dissatisfied” Power. What of the many smaller Powers that have no colonies? And what of the real “have-nots”, the people of the colonies? The whole argument is based on the continuation of the imperialist system. The satisfaction or otherwise of a country depends on the economic policy pursued there, and under imperialism there will always be dissatisfaction, because there will always be inequality. Tsarist Russia before the Revolution was said to be a dissatisfied, expanding Power. Soviet Russia today is smaller in territory, but is “satisfied” because it has no imperialist ambitions and pursues a different economic policy.

  Germany wants colonies not because she cannot get her raw materials otherwise, for the open market is there for her to buy, but because she wants to exploit the people of these colonies to her own advantage. She wants to pay them in her own depreciated currency, in so-called “frozen” marks, and then compel them to buy German goods for them.

  I have written to you about some of the principal events of the past five years and of the consequences that flowed from them. I do not know where to stop, for everywhere there is ferment and change and conflic
t, and it is becoming impossible to consider, much less to solve, the world’s problems on local or national lines. World solutions are necessary. Meanwhile the world grows from bad to worse, and war and violence dominate it. Europe, proud leader of the modern world, rattles back to barbarism. Her old governing classes are impotent and wholly incapable of finding a way out of the difficulties that encompass them.

  The Munich Agreement upset the unstable equilibrium of the world. South-eastern Europe began to succumb to Nazi Power, and Nazi intrigues grew in every country. The smaller countries of Europe, called the Oslo group (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg), realizing that Britain’s friendship was of no value to them, declared their neutrality, and refused to undertake any collective responsibility. Japan grew more aggressive in the Far East, captured Canton and came into conflict with British interests in Hongkong; in Palestine the situation deteriorated rapidly. Relations between America and England became cooler than ever. While Mr Chamberlain was lining up with the fascist Powers, President Roosevelt was denouncing the aims and methods of Naziism. Disgusted with European conflicts and Britain’s and France’s attitude to fascist aggression, America held aloof, and at the same time started rearmament on a vast scale. So also the Soviet Union. Her policy of alliances and non-aggression pacts in the West had not succeeded, and she may be forced into isolation. Yet both America and Russia know that there can be no isolation or neutrality in this distracted world of today, and if conflict comes, they are bound to be dragged into it. For that they prepare.

  America: President Roosevelt’s internal policy in the United States has met with many checks, and the Supreme Court and the reactionary elements have come in his way. Recent elections give an increasing strength to his Republican opponents in the Congress. And yet Roosevelt’s personal popularity and his hold of the American public continue.

  Roosevelt has also followed a policy of developing friendly relations with the South American governments. In Mexico there has been conflict between the Government and American and British oil interests. A far-reaching revolution has taken place in Mexico, which has established the right of the people to the land. The Church and the vested interests in oil and land lost many of their special rights and privileges, and therefore opposed these changes.

  Turkey: In a world of conflict, Turkey seems to be a singularly peaceful country today, with no external enemies. The age-long feud with Greece and the Balkan countries has been settled. Relations with the Soviet Union and with England are good. There was a conflict with France over Alexandretta, which, you will remember, was one of the five States into which the French Government divided its mandated area of Syria. Alexandretta has a predominantly Turkish population, and the French accepted the Turkish contention and created an autonomous State there.

  So Turkey, under the wise guidance of Kemal Ataturk, freed from its racial and other problems, devoted herself to internal development. The Ataturk had served his people well, and when he died on November 10, 1938, he had the good fortune to know that his work had been crowned with remarkable success. He was succeeded in the presidentship of Turkey by his old colleague General Ismet Ineunu.

  Islam: Kemal Ataturk gave a new turn to the vital impulse of Islam in the Middle East. It put on a modern dress and shed medievalism, and thus brought itself into line with the world of today. The Ataturk’s example has had a powerful effect on all the Islamic countries of the Middle East, and modern nation States have grown up, basing themselves on nationalism rather than on religion. This effect has not so far been equally marked in countries like India, where Muslim populations, in common with others, are under imperialist domination.

  The World in Conflict: Europe and the Pacific are the two great scenes of conflict today, and in both these great areas an aggressive fascism seeks to crush democracy and freedom and dominate the world. A kind of fascist international has grown up which not only carries on open, though undeclared, wars, but is always intriguing in various countries and fomenting trouble so as to give it an opportunity to intervene. There is open glorification of war and violence, and a false propaganda on an unprecedented scale. Under cover of the slogan of anti-communism, it advances its imperialist designs, although international communism is nowhere on the aggressive, and has been on the side of world peace and democracy for many years. In the United States of America there have been Nazi conspiracies and trials. In France in December 1937 a conspiracy against the Republic was discovered. This was organized by the Cagoulards, or the Hooded Men as they were called, aided by supplies of arms from Germany and Italy. Bomb outrages and murders were committed by these men. In England influential groups influence British foreign policy in a fascist direction.

  The Berlin–Rome Axis

  This international fascism is not only imperialism in its most extreme form, but, as in the Middle Ages, it has produced religious and racial conflicts. In Germany both the Catholic Church and the Protestants are being suppressed. In Germany also, and latterly in Italy, the idea of Race is glorified, and Jews, and even the descendants of Jews, are being eliminated with a cold-blooded and scientific ferocity that has no parallel in history. Early in November 1938 a young Polish Jew, maddened by the cruel persecution of his race, assassinated a German diplomat in Paris. This was the act of an individual, but it was followed immediately by an official and organized reign of terror in Germany against the entire Jewish population. Every synagogue in the country was burnt down; Jewish shops were wrecked with looting on a grand scale; there were innumerable brutal assaults on men and women in the public streets and inside homes. All this was justified by the Nazi leaders, and in addition to it a fine of £80,000,000 was imposed on the Jews of Germany.

  Suicides, flights, a mighty exodus of sorrowful, helpless, homeless people, with the immemorial grief of ages bearing them down, marching in endless processions to—where? The world is full of refugees, today— Jews, German social democrats from the Sudetenland, Spanish peasants from Franco’s territories, Chinese, Abyssinians. They are bitter fruits of Naziism and Fascism. The world gasps with horror, and numerous organizations are formed to help the refugees. And yet the policy that the so-called democratic governments of England and France pursue is one of friendship and co-operation with Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, and thus they encourage fascist terrorism and the destruction of civilization and decency, and the conversion of hundreds of thousands of human beings into refugees with no home or country to call their own. If this is what the fascist Powers stand for today, “surely”, as Gandhiji says, “there can be no alliance with Germany. How can there be alliance between a nation which claims to stand for justice and democracy, and one which is the declared enemy of both? Or is England drifting towards armed dictatorship and all it means?”

  If England and France became the apologists and defenders of the fascist Powers, it is not surprising that the smaller States of central and south-eastern Europe should fall completely into the fascist orbit. They are, in fact, rapidly developing into the vassal States of fascism, with Nazi Germany as the dominating factor. For Italy has been outmanoeuvred by Germany, and is only a junior partner now in the fascist combine. Both Germany and Italy demand colonial expansion, but the real dream of Germany is for extension towards the East, to Ukraine and the Soviet Union. And England and France are likely to encourage this dream in the vain belief that this might help them to save their own possessions.

  Two great countries stand out—the Soviet Union and the United States of America, the two most powerful nations of the modern world, almost self-sufficient within their far-flung territories, almost unbeatable. For varying reasons both are opposed to Fascism and Naziism. In Europe Soviet Russia remains the sole barrier to fascism; if she were destroyed there would be a complete end of democracy in Europe, including France and England. The United States are far from Europe and cannot easily, and have no desire to, intervene in its affairs. But when such intervention comes in Europe or the Pacific, the tremen
dous strength of America will make itself felt effectively.

  On the side of freedom are also the rising democracies of India and the East, and some of the British Dominions are far more advanced than the British Government. Democracy and freedom are in grave peril today, and the peril is all the greater because their so-called friends stab them in the back. But Spain and China have given us wonderful and inspiring examples of the true spirit of democracy, and in both these countries, through the horror of war, a new nation is being created, and there is a revival and a renaissance in many fields of national life and activity.