本页主题: Comment on Soviet-West German Treaty 打印 | 加为IE收藏 | 复制链接 | 收藏主题 | 上一主题 | 下一主题

weihong1
级别: 精灵王


精华: 0
发帖: 1081
威望: 1082 点
红花: 10810 朵
贡献值: 0 点
在线时间:273(小时)
注册时间:2007-01-15
最后登录:2009-08-13

 Comment on Soviet-West German Treaty

图片:
图片:
Comment on Soviet-West German Treaty


by "RENMIN HIBAO" COMMENTATOR

Source: Peking Review, No. 38, September 18, 1970
Transcribed by www.WENGEWANG.ORG

    THE Soviet Government and the Brandt government of West Germany have recently signed the Soviet-West German Treaty in Moscow. This is a deal clinched by both parties after more than eight months of talks on the question of so-called "mutual renunciation of the use of force." After signing the treaty, the Soviet leaders were beside themselves with glee and gave it much publicity, boasting that it was "a serious contribution to relaxation of tensions in Europe," "creating the foundations of lasting peace and security for all European countries." It seems that by signing the treaty they had done a good thing for the European people, hereafter peace in Europe would be guaranteed and the European people could set their minds at rest.
  Is this really so? No. If one leaves aside the wording of the treaty and carefully analyses the objective facts, one will see clearly that this treaty is a gross betrayal of the interests of the people of Germany, the Soviet Union and Europe by the Soviet revisionist leading clique. It is a monstrous fraud to cover up the aggressive features of Soviet revisionist social-imperialism and West German militarism with the cloak of "peace." It is also a component part of the monstrous "global Munich" scheme which Soviet revisionism and U.S. imperialism, collaborating and contending with each other, are energetically putting into effect to divide the spheres of influence in Europe.

1)   The Treaty Betrays the Sovereignty of the German Democratic Republic and the interests Of the Soviet People

  Before its talks with West Germany, the Soviet Government demanded as a prerequisite of the commencement of their talks that West Germany first recognize the German Democratic Republic in international law. However, at the very beginning of the talks, it renounced this pre-condition. The result of the talks shows that not only was the demand cancelled, but actually tacit approval was given to West Germany's "right" to annex the German Democratic Republic. It is worthy of particular attention that half an hour before signing the treaty, the West German Government handed a letter to the Soviet Government, reiterating its intention to "recover its [Germany's] unity in free self-determination," that is to say, to incorporate the German Democratic Republic into West Germany. The letter also said that the Soviet-West German Treaty is not "at variance with the political objective" of West Germany.   In keeping with the understanding reached between the two sides beforehand, the Soviet authorities went to the length of giving a receipt in acknowledgement of their acceptance of the letter. Immediately after this, West Germany made public the letter together with the full text of the treaty, whereas, up to now, the Soviet authorities dare not make public the letter but have kept the truth from the Soviet people. Doesn't this make it abundantly clear that they have a guilty conscience?
  On the question of West Berlin, the Soviet authorities have retreated even more so at every turn. West Berlin which lies within the territory of the German Democratic Republic belongs to it by right. A few years ago, the Soviet Government demanded that West Germany agree to turn West Berlin into an "independent political unit." This Soviet move was already a big retreat from its original position. Now, the Soviet authorities do not insist even on this. During the talks, the Brandt government, taking advantage of the Soviet authorities' eagerness to clinch the deal, demanded that they recognize the economic, financial and juridical relations between West Berlin and West Germany and guarantee the latter's access to the former. The West German authorities clamoured time and again that the West German Bundestag would not ratify the treaty before a satisfactory solution to the West Berlin question. Utterly disregarding the sovereign interests of the German Democratic Republic, the Soviet Government tacitly accepted the West German terms. In fact, it was only after the Soviet Union had promised to make bigger concessions on the West Berlin question that West Germany signed this treaty. Shortly after the signing of the treaty, the West German President and its Bundestag President provocatively turned up in West Berlin at once to discharge their "duties" and the West German Chancellor also went there to carry out unlawful activities. However, the Soviet authorities said not a word about this. This is another proof of further betrayal by the Soviet leading clique on the West Berlin question.
  In order to extricate itself from its economic difficulties, the Soviet leading clique went down on its knees before the vanquished country West Germany to beg for “aid”. In the course of the talks, it received a loan of 1,500 million marks from West Germany. During the period of the signing of the treaty, the Soviet leaders specially acquainted Brandt with the content of the "Five-Year Plan" for what they called "building communism" and entreated West Germany to provide them with economic and technical "assistance" for tapping Soviet resources. Giving itself airs, West Germany brought pressure to bear on the Soviet Union to make greater concessions. West German Foreign Minister Scheel asserted publicly that only after its demands were met would West Germany "be willing to seek greater co-operation in the economic, scientific, technical and cultural fields in the future."' The Soviet Union was a Soviet state created by the great Lenin and a victor in the anti-fascist war. But the Soviet leaders of today, behaving like representatives of a vanquished country, have humbly begged for alms from West German monopoly capital. What terrible humiliation they have brought on the Soviet people!

2)   The Treaty Is an Encouragement to and Connivance With West German Militarism

  The eradication of German militarism and Nazism is the basic demand of the people of the European countries after World War II and the fundamental principle stipulated in the Potsdam Agreement. But West German militarism and Nazism are quickly reviving under the wing of U.S. imperialism. At present, apart from having completely restored and expanded its industrial basis for munition production, West Germany is intensifying its preparations for illegal production of nuclear weapons. The federal troops of West Germany have become the backbone of the aggressive NATO bloc. The West German monopoly capitalist clique has never for a moment abandoned its revanchist policy of aggression and expansion. It is vainly trying to stage a come-back and revive Hitler's fond dream of the "German Reich" by way of becoming an "economic big power," a "political big power" and then a "military big power." The menace posed by West German militarism to European peace and security has not in the least lessened, but has steadily increased .instead.
  It was in these circumstances that the Soviet Government signed the treaty with West Germany, crowning West German militarism with laurels of peace for so-called "renunciation of the use of force," as if, bound by the treaty, West German militarist and revanchist forces would from then on turn over a new leaf and mend their ways and become an important factor for "stabilizing the situation in Europe" and "guaranteeing European security." This is a tremendous encouragement to West German revanchism, making it possible for West Germany to push ahead all the more unbridledly with arms expansion and war preparations as well as aggression and expansion under the cover of this treaty.
  During the negotiations, the West German authorities made no effort at all to conceal their ambitions to annex the German Democratic Republic and carry out aggression and expansion against Eastern Europe. They insisted on the recovery of the "right of residence," that is, the "right*1 of restoring the frontier of Hitler's Germany. No sooner had the ink of the signatures dried than the West German authorities blustered publicly that the treaty would not prevent West Germany from "altering or abolishing the border" in a "peaceful" way. It can be seen how arrogant the West German militarists have become with the signing of this treaty.
  Twenty-five years ago, the heroic Soviet Red Army and people under the leadership of Comrade Stalin, together with the other European people, had made great sacrifices in order to defeat the German fascists. Theirs was an important contribution to the cause of justice and progress of mankind. The Soviet and European people have every right to check the revival of West German militarism. Now, however, in concluding the treaty with West Germany, the Soviet Government has renounced this right of the Soviet people. Following the signing of the treaty, West German Foreign Minister Scheel openly stated that West Germany "is no longer the vanquished country of the last war," but has become "an equal partner" of the Soviet Union. Gromyko, the Western press disclosed, went so far as to laud West Germany right before the West Germans as "having become a giant politically too." Such revolting acts on the part of the Soviet authorities are treason against the Soviet people and the people of other countries who took part in the anti-fascist war, and open connivance with and encouragement to West German militarism.

3)   The Treaty Shows the Craftiness and Villainy of The Brandt Government, Not Its "Sensibleness" and "Realism"

  The leaders of the Soviet Union lauded the Brandt government of the Social Democratic Party as the representative of the "democratic forces" in West Germany, which is making "a turn to realism" and has changed its policy over to one "corresponding to the real state of affairs in Europe and the interests of lasting peace." The conclusion of the treaty, they said, "is a reasonable step in the right direction."
  People are not unfamiliar with this theory of so-called "sensibleness." In the past, when U.S. imperialist chieftain Kennedy came into office, Khrushchov immediately praised him for "considering reality soberly" and showing "a sensible approach." But during the Caribbean crisis, this so-called "sensible" president bared his fangs and drove Khrushchov into a corner. When Johnson entered the White House, the Soviet revisionists flattered him in the same way, saying that he "sensibly appraised the present state of affairs." Johnson's reply was the creation of the "incident of the Gulf of Bac Bo" and the frenzied escalation of the war of aggression against Viet Nam. After Nixon came to power, the Soviet revisionists did much to advertise this U.S. imperialist chieftain as "paying attention to peace problems" and trying to turn the "period of confrontation" into "an era of negotiation." But Nixon sent troops to invade Cambodia and expanded the war of aggression to the whole of Indo-China.   The Soviet revisionists' theory of socalled "sensibleness" has long been exploded by one harsh fact after another.
  Now, they have again picked up this discredited theory to prettify the Brandt government. After all, what kind of stuff is Brandt's "sensibleness" as described by the Soviet revisionists? To put it bluntly, it is the so-called "new Eastern policy" pursued by Brandt. The essence of this policy is to realize the ambitions of the West German monopoly capitalists for expansion and aggression in Eastern Europe through the more cunning and vicious means of peaceful penetration in the interest of these capitalists. Brandt himself admitted that his policy is the continuation of the policies pursued by previous West German governments and said that the conclusion of the Soviet-West German Treaty was "a victory for the post-war policy of Germany." With regard to West Germany's post-war policy, Adenauer openly declared in September 1953: "Our policy is that of unifying Germany through the liberation of the compatriots in the eastern part by peaceful means, and of a unified Europe. I speak as the representative of the whole Germany." Since Brandt's policy is the continuation of Adenauer's policy, what essential difference is there between Brandt and Adenauer and his ilk? In fact, like its predecessor, the government of the Christian Democratic Union, the Brandt government of the Social Democratic Party represents the interests of West German monopoly capital; its policy is also in the interest of the present counter-revolutionary global strategy of U.S. imperialism.

4)   The Treaty Is Not in Favour but to the Detriment Of Peace and Security in Europe

  Through their deceitful propaganda, the Soviet authorities attempt to make people believe that since the treaty has stipulated the mutual "renunciation of the use of force" and recognized the status quo of European boundaries, it is after all a good and not a bad thing for European peace and security.
  Actually, it is just the contrary. The reality and historical experience of Europe only go to show that Europe is not better but worse off with this treaty.
  The threat to peace and security in Europe and the root cause of tension in Europe are none other than the policies of aggression and expansion of U.S. imperialism and Soviet revisionist social-imperialism and the danger of the revival of West German militarism.
  Today, U.S. imperialism and Soviet revisionism are stepping up arms expansion and war preparations in Europe. By using two opposing military blocs, they have carried out, each in its own sphere, military control, interference and occupation in a number of West and East European countries, seriously encroaching upon their independence and sovereignty. To divide spheres of influence and contend for hegemony in Europe, the two "superpowers" are collaborating and at the same time contending with each other just as they do in the Middle East and other parts of the world. As the mainstay of the aggressive NATO bloc and chief partner of U.S. imperialism. West Germany is ambitiously expanding its influence and is prepared to seize the position of overlord of Europe at the first opportunity.
  The Soviet-West German Treaty was signed precisely under these circumstances in Europe. It is not only a dirty deal between the Soviet authorities and the West German Brandt government, but also a product of the collusion and contention between Soviet revisionism and U.S. imperialism to divide spheres of influence and exercise hegemony in Europe. It has not in the least changed the aggressive nature of U.S. imperialism, Soviet revisionism and West German militarism. It serves only to cover up their aggressive features and create a false appearance of peace by using such high-sounding words as "peace" and "security." This can only lull the European people into dropping their guard and relaxing their will to fight West German militarism and the contention between the two "superpowers" the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union for supremacy over Europe, and sap their strength to defend peace and security in Europe.
  Europe's historical experience has long shown that German militarism, aggressive by nature, will never be bound by any treaty or agreement. The Locarno Pact signed in 1925 "guaranteed" the inviolability of the border between Germany and France and the border between Germany and Belgium and provided for the demilitarization of the Rhineland by Germany defeated in World War I. But following its assumption of power, German fascism sent troops into the Rhineland in 1936 and flagrantly tore up the Locarno Pact.
  Before Hitler overran Europe, he had signed separate treaties of non-aggression with many European countries which he invaded later. These treaties notwithstanding, he eventually tore them up one by one, launched perfidious attacks against them, and annexed or invaded one European country after another.
  Europe's historical experience has also shown that the division of spheres of influence to arrive at certain temporary compromise by several imperialist powers which use small nations' sovereignty as stakes in deals and sacrifice their interests can in no way bring peace and security to the people of various countries but will only sow the seeds of danger of a new war. Having signed the Munich Agreement with Hitler in September 1938, the then British Prime Minister Chamberlain stated complacently that "from now on, peace is guaranteed for a whole generation." However, it is well-known that precisely a year after the signing of this notorious Munich Agreement, Hitler launched a large-scale war of aggression in Europe.
  Today U.S. imperialism, Soviet revisionism and West German militarism are repeating the history of Europe in a different form. This can never be tolerated by the people of the European countries who had experienced two world wars and undergone untold sufferings under German militarism. To safeguard peace and security in Europe, the people of the European countries must resolutely oppose the policies of aggression and war of U.S. imperialism, resolutely oppose the aggression and expansion of Soviet revisionist soda 1-imperialism and its betrayal of the European people, and resolutely oppose the revival of West German militarism.
Our great leader Chairman Mao has pointed out: "The people, and the people alone, arc the motive force in the making of world history." Now, gone are the days of Munich when several big powers could arbitrarily decide the fate of Europe. The destiny of Europe is decided not by U.S. imperialism, not by Soviet revisionist social-imperialism, not by West German militarism, nor by any treaty concluded between them, but by the proletariat and the revolutionary people of the European countries, the revolutionary struggle of these people. The Chinese people firmly support the German people, the East European people and the people of all European countries in their struggle against West German militarism and revanchism, firmly support the European peoples in their struggle against U.S. imperialism and Soviet revisionist social-imperialism. They are convinced that their just struggle will win complete victory.

(September 13)

  

Source: Peking Review, No. 38, September 18, 1970
Transcribed by www.WENGEWANG.ORG
  
  
  

 
 
顶端 Posted: 2009-03-03 04:32 | [楼 主]
帖子浏览记录 版块浏览记录
中国文革研究网 » CR DOCUMENTS
 
 

Total 0.011201(s) query 3, Time now is:07-28 06:50, Gzip enabled
Powered by PHPWind v6.3.2 Certificate © http://wengewang.tk