--------------------------------------------------
 Translation: Unknown
 Copyright: A. Solzhenitsyn  1975/1976/1979
 OCR: EEN, 08/14/2002
--------------------------------------------------

Russian   exile    Aleksandr    Solzhenitsyn,   in
Washington, D.C., on June 30, delivered a dramatic
warning  to  all  the  world - and to Americans in
particular. The Nobel Prize winning author, in his
first  major  public  address  since his expulsion
from  the  Soviet Union in 1974, stripped bare the
crimes  and  excesses  of the Communist masters in
his  native  land. And he denounced the West for a
"senseless   process   of   endless concessions to
aggressors"  in  the  Kremlin.  The  text  of  the
90-minute address that follows is the  translation
approved by the author,  reprinted with permission
of the AFL-CIO, which invited him to speak.
--------------------------------------------------

     Most of those present here today are workers.
Creative  workers. And I myself, having spent many
years  of  my  life  as  a  stone  cutter,  as   a
foundryman, as a manual worker, in the name of all
who  have  shared  this forced labor with me, like
the two Gulag prisoners whom you just saw, and  on
behalf of those who are doing  forced labor in our
country,  I  can  start  my  speech today with the
greeting "Brothers!" "Brothers in Labor."
     And not to forget,  also,  the  many  honored
guests present here tonight, let me  add:  "Ladies
and Gentlemen."
     "Workers of the world unite!" Who of  us  has
not  heard  this  slogan,  which has been sounding
through  the  world  for  125 years? Today you can
find it in any Soviet pamphlet as well as in every
issue of Pravda. But never have the leaders of the
Communist  revolution  in  the  Soviet  Union made
application  of these words sincerely and in their
full meaning. When many lies have accumulated over
the decades, we forget  the  radical and basic lie
which is not on the leaves of the tree, but at its
very roots.
     Now, it's almost impossible to remember or to
believe.. For instance, I recently published - had
reprinted  -  a  pamphlet from the year 1918. This
was  a   precise   record  of  a  meeting  of  all
representatives  of  the Petrograd factories, that
being the city known in our country as the "cradle
of the Revolution."
     I  repeat,  this  was  March 1918 - only four
months after the October  Revolution - and all the
representatives  of  the  Petrograd factories were
cursing  the  Communists, who had deceived them in
all of their promises.  What is more, not only had
they  abandoned  Petrograd  to  cold  and  hunger,
themselves  having  fled from Petrograd to Moscow,
but had given  orders  to  machine-gun  the crowds
of workers in the courtyards of the  factories who
were demanding the election of independent factory
committees.
     Let  me  remind  you,  this  was  March 1918.
Scarcely  anyone  now  can recall the crushing  of
the Petrograd strikes in 1921, or the shooting  of
workers in Kolpino in the same year.
     Among  the  leadership, the Central Committee
of the Communist Party,  at the  beginning  of the
Revolution, all were emigre intellectuals who  had
returned,  after  the uprisings had already broken
out  in  Russia,  in  order  to  carry through the
Communist  Revolution.  One  of them was a genuine
worker, a highly skilled lathe operator  until the
last  day  of  his  life.   This   was   Alexander
Shliapnikov.  Who knows that name today? Precisely
because  he  expressed  the  true interests of the
workers within the Communist  leadership.  In  the
years before the Revolution it was Shliapnikov who
ran  the  whole  Communist  Party  in Russia - not
Lenin,  who  was an emigre. In 1921, he headed the
Workers'  Opposition  which   was   charging   the
Communist leadership with betraying  the  workers'
interests,  with  crushing  and   oppressing   the
proletariat  and   transforming   itself   into  a
bureaucracy.
     Shliapnikov  disappeared  from  sight. He was
arrested  somewhat later and since he firmly stood
his  ground  he was shot in prison and his name is
perhaps unknown  to  most people here today. But I
remind you: before the Revolution the head  of the
Communist  Party  of  Russia was Shliapnikov - not
Lenin.
     Since  that time, the working class has never
been  able  to  stand  up  for  its rights, and in
distinction  from  all  the  western countries our
working  class only receives what they hand out to
it.  It  only  gets handouts. It cannot defend its
simplest, everyday interests, and the least strike
for pay or for better living conditions is  viewed
as  counter-revolutionary.  Thanks  to  the closed
nature  of  the  Soviet  system, you have probably
never  heard  of  the  textile  strikes in 1930 in
Ivanovo, or of the 1961 worker unrest in Murom and
Alexandrovo, or of the major workers' uprising  in
Novocherkassk  in  1962  -  this  in  the  time of
Khrushchev, after the thaw.
     This  story  will  shortly  be  published  in
detail  in  your  country  in  Gulag  Archipelago,
volume  3.  It is a story of how workers went in a
peaceful demonstration to the Party City Committee,
carrying  portraits  of Lenin, to request a change
in  economic  conditions.  They fired at them with
machine  guns and dispersed the crowds with tanks.
No  family  dared  even to collect its wounded and
dead,  but  all  were  taken away in secret by the
authorities.
     Precisely to those present here I don't  have
to  explain  that  in  our   country,   since  the
Revolution,  there's  never been such a thing as a
free trade union.
     The  leaders  of the British trade unions are
free  to  play  the  unworthy  game  of   visiting
Russia's  so-called  trade  unions  and  receiving
visits in return. But the AFL-CIO has never  given
in to these illusions.
     The  American  workers'  movement  has  never
allowed  itself  to  be  blinded  and  to  mistake
slavery  for  freedom.  And I, today, on behalf of
all of our oppressed people, thank you for this!
     When  liberal  thinkers  and  wise men of the
West,  who  had  forgotten the meaning of the word
"liberty," were swearing that in the Soviet  Union
there  were  no  concentration  camps  at all, the
American Federation of Labor, published in 1947, a
map  of  our concentration camps, and on behalf of
all of the prisoners of those  times,  I  want  to
thank the American workers' movement for this.
     But  just  as  we  feel ourselves your allies
here, there also  exists  another  alliance  -  at
first glance a strange one, a surprising one - but
if  you  think  about  it,  in  fact, one which is
well-grounded  and  easy to understand this is the
alliance  between  our  Communist leaders and your
capitalists.
     This  alliance  is  not  new. The very famous
Armand Hammer, who is flourishing here today, laid
the   basis  for  this  when  he  made  the  first
exploratory  trip  into  Russia,  still in Lenin's
time, in the very first years  of the  Revolution.
He  was extremely successful in this  intelligence
mission  and  since  that  time  for  all these 50
years, we observe continuous and steady support by
the  businessmen  of  the  West   of   the  Soviet
Communist leaders.
     Their clumsy and awkward economy, which could
never overcome  its own difficulties by itself, is
continually  getting  material  and  technological
assistance. The major construction projects in the
initial five-year plan were built exclusively with
American  technology  and  materials.  Even Stalin
recognized that two-thirds of  what was needed was
obtained  from  the  West. And if today the Soviet
Union has powerful military and police forces - in
a country which is by contemporary standards  poor
- they are used to crush our movement for  freedom
in the Soviet Union - and  we have western capital
to thank for this also.

     Let me remind you of a recent incident  which
some  of  you  may  have  seen  in the newspapers,
although  others  might have missed it: Certain of
your  businessmen,  on   their   own   initiative,
established  an   exhibition   of   criminological
technology in Moscow. This was the most recent and
elaborate technology, which here, in your country,
is used to catch criminals, to bug them, to spy on
them,  to  photograph   them,  to  tail  them,  to
identify criminals. This was taken to Moscow to an
exhibition  in  order  that  the Soviet KGB agents
could study it, as if not understanding what  sort
of criminals, who would be hunted by the KGB.
     The   Soviet   government    was    extremely
interested  in  this  technology,  and  decided to
purchase  it.  And  your  businessmen  were  quite
willing  to  sell it. Only when a few sober voices
here  raised  an  uproar  against it was this deal
blocked.  Only  for  this  reason  it  didn't take
place.  But you have to realize how clever the KGB
is.  This  technology  didn't  have to stay two or
three  weeks  in  a  Soviet  building under Soviet
guard. Two or three nights were enough for the KGB
there to look through it and copy it. And if today,
persons are being hunted down by the best and most
advanced  technology,  for  this, I can also thank
your western capitalists.
     This   is   something   which    is    almost
incomprehensible  to  the human mind: that burning
greed for profit which goes beyond all reason, all
self-control, all conscience, only to get money.
     I  must  say  that  Lenin foretold this whole
process.  Lenin, who spent most of his life in the
West  and  not  in  Russia, who knew the West much
better than Russia, always wrote and said that the
western   capitalists   would   do   anything   to
strengthen  the  economy  of  the  USSR. They will
compete with each other to sell  us goods  cheaper
and sell them quicker, so that  the  Soviets  will
buy from one rather than from the other. He  said:
They will bring  it  themselves  without  thinking
about their future. And, in a difficult moment, at
a  party  meeting  in  Moscow, he said: "Comrades,
don't  panic,  when things go very hard for us, we
will  give  a  rope  to  the  bourgeoisie, and the
bourgeoisie will hang itself."
     Then, Karl Radek, whom you may have heard of,
who  was a very resourceful wit,  said:  "Vladimir
Ilyich, but where are we going to get enough  rope
to hang the whole bourgeoisie?"
     Lenin effortlessly  replied, "They'll  supply
us with it."

     Through the decades of the 1920s, the  1930s,
the  1940s,  the  1950s,  the  whole  Soviet press
wrote: Western capitalism, your end is near.
     But  it  was  as  if  the capitalists had not
heard,  could  not  understand,  could not believe
this.
     Nikita  Khrushchev  came  here  and said, "We
will bury you!" They didn't believe that,  either.
They took it as a joke.
     Now, of course, they have become  more clever
in  our  country. Now they don't say "we are going
to bury you" anymore, now they say "detente."
     Nothing  has  changed  in Communist ideology.
The  goals  are the same as they were, but instead
of  the  artless Khrushchev, who couldn't hold his
tongue, now they say "detente."
     In order to understand this, I will take  the
liberty  of  making  a short historic survey - the
history  of  such  relations,  which  in different
periods  have been called "trade,"  "stabilization
of the situation," "recognition of realities," and
now "detente." These relations 'now are  at  least
40 years old.
     Let me remind you with what  sort  of  system
they started.
     The system was installed by armed uprising.
     It dispersed the Constituent Assembly.
     It capitulated to Germany - the common enemy.
     It introduced execution without trial.
     It crushed workers' strikes.
     It  plundered   the   villagers  to  such  an
unbelievable  extent  that  the peasants revolted,
and when this happened it crushed the peasants  in
the bloodiest possible way.
     It shattered the Church.
     It reduced 20 provinces of our  country  to a
condition of famine.
     This was in 1921, the famous Volga  famine. A
very typical Communist technique: To  seize  power
without  thinking  of the fact that the productive
forces  will collapse, that the fields will not be
sown,  the  factories  will stop, that the country
will  decline  into  poverty and famine - but when
poverty  and  hunger  come,  then they request the
humanitarian world to help them.
     We see this in North Vietnam  today,  perhaps
Portugal  is  approaching  this also. And the same
thing  happened in Russia in 1921. When the three-
year  civil  war,  started by the Communists - and
"civil war" was a slogan of the Communists,  civil
war  was Lenin's purpose; read Lenin, this was his
aim and his slogan - when they had  ruined  Russia
by  this  civil  war,  then  they  asked  America,
"America,  feed  our hungry." And indeed, generous
and magnanimous America did feed our hungry.
     The so-called American Relief  Administration
was set up, headed by your future President Hoover,
and  indeed  many  millions  of Russian lives were
saved by this organization of yours.
     But  what sort of gratitude did  you  receive
for  this?  In  the  USSR not only did they try to
erase  this  whole event from the popular memory -
it's  almost impossible  today in the Soviet press
to  find  any  reference  to  the  American Relief
Administration  -  but  they even denounce it as a
clever  spy  organization,  a  clever  scheme   of
American  imperialism  to  set up a spy network in
Russia. I repeat, it was a system that  introduced
concentration  camps  for  the  first  time in the
history of the world.

     A system that, in the 20th Century,  was  the
first to introduce the use of hostages, that is to
say,  not  to  seize  the  person  whom  they were
seeking,  but  rather  a  member  of his family or
someone at random, and shoot that person.
     This  system  of  hostages and persecution of
the  family  exists  to  this day. It is still the
most  powerful  weapon of persecution, because the
bravest  person,  who  is  not afraid for himself,
still shivers at the threat to his family.
     It is a system which was  the  first  -  long
before Hitler - to employ false registration, that
is, to say: "Such and such people have to come  in
to register."  People  would  comply and then they
were taken away to be annihilated.
     We didn't have gas chambers in those days. We
used barges. A hundred or a thousand persons  were
put into a barge and then it was sunk.
     It was a system which deceived the workers in
all  of  its  decrees  -  the  decree on land, the
decree  on  peace,  the  decree  on factories, the
decree on freedom of the press.
     It  was  a  system  which   exterminated  all
additional  parties,  and  let me make it clear to
you  that  it not only disbanded the party itself,
but  destroyed  its  members. All members of every
other  party  were  exterminated.  It was a system
which  carried  out  genocide of the peasantry; 15
million peasants were sent off to extermination.
     It was a system which introduced serfdom, the
so-called "passport system."
     It  was  a  system  which,  in time of peace,
artificially  created  a famine, causing 6 million
persons to die in the Ukraine in  1932  and  1933.
They died on the very edge of Europe.  And  Europe
didn't  even  notice  it.  The  world  didn't even
notice it - 6 million persons!
     I could keep on enumerating these  endlessly,
but I have to stop because I have come to the year
1933 when, with all I have enumerated  behind  us,
your  President  Roosevelt   and   your   Congress
recognized this system as one worthy of diplomatic
recognition, of friendship and of assistance.
     Let  me  remind you that the great Washington
did not agree  to  recognize the French Convention
because of its savagery. Let me remind you that in
1933, voices were raised in your country objecting
to  recognition  of the Soviet Union. However, the
recognition took place and this was the  beginning
of  friendship  and  ultimately  of   a   military
alliance.
     Let  us remember that in 1904,  the  American
press was delighted at the Japanese  victories and
everyone  wanted  Russia's defeat because it was a
conservative country. I want to remind you that in
1914  reproaches  were  directed  at   France  and
England  for  having entered into an alliance with
such a conservative country as Russia.

     The  scope  and  the  direction  of my speech
today  do  not  permit  me  to  say   more   about
prerevolutionary  Russia.  I  will  just  say that
information  about  pre-revolutionary  Russia  was
obtained  by the West from persons who were either
not  sufficiently  competent  or  not sufficiently
conscientious.  I  will  just cite for the sake of
comparison a number of figures which you can  read
for yourself in Gulag Archipelago, volume 1, which
has  been  published  in  the  United  States, and
perhaps  many  of  you may have read it. These are
the figures:
     According  to  calculations  by  specialists,
based on the most precise objective statistics, in
prerevolutionary  Russia,  during  the  80   years
before the revolution - years of the revolutionary
movement  when  there  were attempts on the Tsar's
life, assassination of a Tsar, revolution - during
these years about 17 persons a year were executed.
The famous Spanish Inquisition, during the decades
when  it  was  at  the  height of its persecution,
destroyed  perhaps  10  persons  a  month.  In the
Archipelago - I cite a book which was published by
the  Cheka  in  1920,  proudly  reporting  on  its
revolutionary  work   in   1918   and   1919   and
apologizing  that its data were not quite complete
- in  1918  and  1919  the Cheka executed, without
trial, more than a thousand  persons a month! This
was  written  by  the  Cheka  itself,   before  it
understood how this would look to history.
     At  the height of Stalin's terror in 1937-38,
if we divide the number of persons executed by the
number of months, we get more than 40,000  persons
shot  per  month! Here are the figures: 17 a year,
10  a  month,  more  than 1,000 a month, more than
40,000  a  month!  Thus,  that  which  had made it
difficult  for  the  democratic  West  to  form an
alliance  with  pre-revolutionary  Russia  had, by
1941,  grown  to  such an extent and still did not
prevent the entire united democracy of the world -
England,  France,  the  United   States,   Canada,
Australia and small countries - from entering into
a military alliance with the Soviet Union. How  is
this  to  be  explained? How can we understand it?
Here we can offer a few explanations. The first, I
think,  is that the entire united democracy of the
world  was  too  weak  to  fight  against Hitler's
Germany  alone.  If this is the case, then it is a
terrible  sign.  It  is a terrible portent for the
present day. If all these countries together could
not defeat Hitler's little Germany,  what are they
going  to  do today, when more than half the globe
is flooded with totalitarianism? I don't  want  to
accept this explanation.
     The  second explanation is perhaps that there
was  simply  an  attack of panic - of fear - among
the  statesmen of the day. They simply didn't have
sufficient  confidence  in themselves, they simply
had  no  strength  of spirit, and in this confused
state  decided  to  enter  into  an  alliance with
Soviet    totalitarianism.  This   is   also   not
flattering to the West.
     Finally, the third explanation is that it was
a deliberate device. Democracy  did  not  want  to
defend  itself.  For  defense  it  wanted  to  use
another    totalitarian    system,    the   Soviet
totalitarian system.
     I'm  not  talking   now   about   the   moral
evaluation  of  this, I'm going to talk about that
later.  But  in  terms  of simple calculation, how
shortsighted, what profound self-deception!
     We  have  a  Russian  proverb: "Do not call a
wolf  to  help  you against the dogs." If dogs are
attacking  and  tearing  at you, fight against the
dogs,  but  do  not  call a wolf for help. Because
when the wolves come, they will destroy the  dogs,
but they will also tear you apart.

     World  democracy  could  have   defeated  one
totalitarian  regime  after  another,  the German,
then the Soviet. Instead, it  strengthened  Soviet
totalitarianism,  helped  bring  into  existence a
third totalitarianism, that of China, and all this
finally precipitated the present world situation.
     Roosevelt, in Teheran, during one of his last
toasts,  said  the following: "I do not doubt that
the  three  of  us" - meaning Roosevelt, Churchill
and Stalin - "lead our peoples in accordance  with
their desires, in accordance with their aims." How
are  we  to explain this? Let the historians worry
about  that.  At  the  time,  we listened and were
astonished. We thought, "when we reach  Europe, we
will meet the Americans, and we will tell them." I
was  among  the  troops that were marching towards
the  Elbe.  A  little  bit  more  and I would have
reached  the  Elbe and would have shaken the hands
of your  American  soldiers.  But just before that
happened, I was taken off to prison and my meeting
did not take place.
     But now, after all this great delay, the same
hand  has  thrown me out of the country and here I
am,  instead  of  the meeting at the Elbe. After a
delay  of  30  years,  my Elbe is here today. I am
here  to  tell  you,  as  a  friend  of the United
States,  what,  as  friends, we wanted to tell you
then, but which our soldiers were  prevented  from
telling you on the Elbe.
     There is another Russian proverb:  "The  yes-
man is your enemy, but your friend will argue with
you." It is precisely because I am the  friend  of
the  United States, precisely because my speech is
prompted  by  friendship, that I have come to tell
you: "My friends, I'm not going to tell  you sweet
words.  The  situation  in  the  world is not just
dangerous,  it  isn't  just  threatening,  it   is
catastrophic."
     Something  that  is  incomprehensible  to the
ordinary  human  mind  has  taken  place.  We over
there,  the  powerless,  average  Soviet   people,
couldn't  understand,  year  after year and decade
after decade, what was happening. How were  we  to
explain this? England, France, the United  States,
were victorious in World War II. Victorious states
always    dictate   peace;   they   receive   firm
conditions;   they   create  the sort of situation
which accords with their philosophy, their concept
of liberty, their concept of national interest.
     Instead  of  this,  beginning  in Yalta, your
statesmen  of  the  West,  for  some  inexplicable
reason,  have  signed   one   capitulation   after
another.  Never  did  the West  or  your President
Roosevelt  impose  any  conditions  on  the Soviet
Union  for  obtaining  aid. He gave unlimited aid,
and  then unlimited concessions. Already in Yalta,
without any necessity, the occupation of Mongolia,
Moldavia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania was  silently
recognized. Immediately after that, almost nothing
was done to protect eastern Europe, and  seven  or
eight more countries were surrendered.

     Stalin demanded that the Soviet  citizens who
did not want to return home be handed over to him,
and the western countries handed over 1.5  million
human beings. How was this done? They took them by
force.  English  soldiers  killed Russians who did
not want to become prisoners  of Stalin, and drove
them  by  force to Stalin to be exterminated. This
has  recently come to light - just a few years ago
- a million and a half human beings. How could the
Western democracies have done this?
     And  after  that,  for  another 30 years, the
constant  retreat,  the  surrender  of one country
after  another,  to such  a  point  that there are
Soviet  satellites  even  in Africa; almost all of
Asia  is  taken  over by them; Portugal is rolling
down the precipice.
     During those 30 years, more  was  surrendered
to  totalitarianism  than any defeated country has
ever  surrendered  after any war in history. There
was no war, but there might as well have been.
     For  a  long  time  we  in  the East couldn't
understand  this.  We   couldn't   understand  the
flabbiness of the truce concluded in Vietnam.  Any
average Soviet citizen understood that this  was a
sly  device  which  made  it  possible  for  North
Vietnam  to  take  over  South  Vietnam when it so
chose.  And  suddenly,  this  was  rewarded by the
Nobel Prize for Peace - a tragic and ironic prize.
     A very dangerous state of mind can arise as a
result of this 30 years of  retreat:  give  in  as
quickly  as  possible,  give  up  as   quickly  as
possible, peace and quiet at any cost.

     This  is  what  many  western  papers  wrote:
"Let's  hurry  up  an end the bloodshed in Vietnam
and have national unity there." But at the  Berlin
Wall no one talked of national unity. One of  your
leading newspapers, after the  end of Vietnam, had
a  full  headline:  "The Blessed Silence." I would
not  wish  that  kind  of  "blessed silence" on my
worst  enemy.  I  would  not  wish  that  kind  of
national unity on my worst enemy.
     I  spent 11 years in the Archipelago, and for
half  of my lifetime I have studied this question.
Looking at this terrible tragedy in Vietnam from a
distance,  I  can tell you, a million persons will
be  simply  exterminated, while 4 to 5 million (in
accordance  with  the  scale of Vietnam) will find
themselves  in  concentration  camps  and  will be
rebuilding  Vietnam.  And  what  is  happening  in
Cambodia  you  already know. It is genocide. It is
full  and  complete destruction but in a new form.
Once  again their technology is not up to building
gas chambers.
    So, in a few hours, the entire capital  city -
the  guilty  capital  city  -  is emptied out: old
people,  women,  children  are  driven out without
belongings without food "Go and die!" This is very
dangerous  for  one's  view of the world when this
feeling comes on: "Go ahead, give it up."
     We already hear voices in your country and in
the  West "Give up Korea and we will live quietly.
Give  up  Portugal, of course: give up Japan, give
up  Israel,  give  up  Taiwan,  the   Philippines,
Malaysia,  Thailand,  give  up  10  more   African
countries.  Just  let us  live in peace and quiet.
Just  let  us  drive  our big cars on our splendid
highways;  just  let  us  play tennis and golf, in
peace and quiet; just let us mix our cocktails  in
peace  and  quiet  as  we are accustomed to doing;
just let us see the beautiful toothy smile with  a
glass  in  hand on every advertisement page of our
magazines."

     But look how things have turned out:  Now  in
the West this has all turned  into  an  accusation
against  the  United  States. Now, in the West, we
hear  very  many  voices saying, "It's your fault,
America." And, here, I must  decisively defend the
United States against these accusations.
     I have to say that the United States, of  all
the  countries of the West, is the least guilty in
all this and has done the most in order to prevent
it. The United States has helped Europe to win the
First and the Second World Wars. It  twice  raised
Europe from post-war destruction - twice - for 10,
20, 30 years it has stood as a  shield  protecting
Europe  while  European  countries  were  counting
their  nickels,  to  avoid paying for their armies
(better  yet  to have none at all) to avoid paying
for  armaments,  thinking about how to leave NATO,
knowing that in any case America will protect them
anyway.  These  countries  started it all, despite
their  thousands  of  years  of  civilization  and
culture,  even  though  they are closer and should
have known better.
     I came to your continent - for  two  months I
have been travelling in its wide open spaces and I
agree:  here  you  do  not feel the nearness of it
all,  the  immediacy  of  it  all.  And here it is
possible  to  miscalculate.  Here  you must make a
spiritual  effort  to  understand the acuteness of
the world situation.  The United States of America
has long  shown itself to be the most magnanimous,
the most  generous country in the world.  Wherever
there is a flood, an earthquake, a fire, a natural
disaster, disease, who is the first to  help?  The
United States. Who helps the most and unselfishly?
The United States.
     And  what  do  we  hear in reply? Reproaches,
curses,  "Yankee  Go  Home."   American   cultural
centers are burned, and the representatives of the
Third  World  jump  on  tables to vote against the
United States.
     But this does not take the load off America's
shoulders.  The  course  of  history - whether you
like  it  or not - has made you the leaders of the
world.   Your   country   can   no   longer  think
provincially. Your political leaders can no longer
think only of their own states, of  their parties,
of petty arrangements which may or may not lead to
promotion.  You  must think about the whole world,
and  when  the  new  political crisis in the world
will  arise  (I think we have just come to the end
of a very acute crisis and the next one will  come
any moment) the main decisions will fall anyway on
the shoulders of the United States of America.
     And  while  already  here,  I have heard some
explanations  of  the situation. Let me quote some
of them: "It is impossible to protect those who do
not  have  the will to defend themselves." I agree
with that, but this was said about South  Vietnam.
In  one-half  of  today's  Europe  and  in  three-
quarters  of  today's  world  the  will  to defend
oneself is even less than it was in South Vietnam.
     We are told: "We cannot defend those who  are
unable to defend themselves with their  own  human
resources." But against the overwhelming powers of
totalitarianism,  when all of this power is thrown
against a country - no country can  defend  itself
with  its  own  resources.  For   instance,  Japan
doesn't have a standing army.
     We are told, "We should not protect those who
do not have full  democracy."  This  is  the  most
remarkable  argument  of  the  lot.  This  is  the
Leitmotif  I  hear  in  your newspapers and in the
speeches of some of your political leaders. Who in
the  world,  ever,  on  the  front line of defense
against  totalitarianism  has been able to sustain
full democracy? You, the united democracies of the
world,  were  not  able  to  sustain  it. America,
England,  France,  Canada,  Australia together did
not sustain it. At the first threat of  Hitlerism,
you  stretched  out your hands to Stalin. You call
that sustaining democracy?
     And  there  is  more  of the same (there were
many  of  these speeches in a row): "If the Soviet
Union is going to use  detente  for  its own ends,
then  we. ..."  But  what  will  happen  then? The
Soviet  Union  has  used  detente   in   its   own
interests,  is  using  it now and will continue to
use  it  in  its own interests! For example. China
and  the Soviet Union, both actively participating
in  detente,  have quietly grabbed three countries
of  Indochina.  True,  perhaps  as  a consolation,
China will send you a ping-pong team. And just  as
the Soviet Union once sent you the pilots who once
crossed  the  North  Pole,  in  a  few days you're
flying into space together.
      A  typical  diversion.  I remember very well
the  year,  this  was  June of 1937, when Chkalov,
Baidukov  and  Beliakov  heroically  flew over the
North Pole and landed  in the state of Washington.
This  was the very year when Stalin was  executing
more than 40,000 persons a month. And  Stalin knew
what  he  was  doing.  He  sent  those  pilots and
aroused in you a naive delight - the friendship of
two  countries  across  the North Pole. The pilots
were  heroic,  nobody  will  say  anything against
them.  But  this was a show - a show to divert you
from  the  real  events  of  1937. And what is the
occasion  now? Is it an anniversary - 38 years? Is
38  years  some  kind of an anniversary? No, it is
simply  necessary  to  cover up Vietnam. And, once
again,  those  pilots  were sent here. The Chkalov
Memorial  was unveiled in the State of Washington.
Chkalov  was  a  hero and is worthy of a memorial.
But,  to  present  the  true  picture,  behind the
memorial  there  should have been a wall and on it
there  should  have  been a bas relief showing the
executions, showing the skulls and bones.
     We  are  also  told  (I apologize for so many
quotes,  but there are many more in your press and
radio):  "We  cannot  ignore  the  fact that North
Vietnam  and  the  Khmer  Rouge  have violated the
agreement,  but  we're  ready  to  look  into  the
future."  What  docs that mean? It means: let them
exterminate people. But  if  these  murderers, who
live  by  violence,  these  executioners, offer us
detente we will be happy to go along with them. As
Willy  Brandt  once said: "I would even be willing
to  have  detente  with  Stalin."  At  a time when
Stalin  was executing 40,000 a month he would have
been willing to have detente with Stalin?
     Look into the future. This is how they looked
into  the  future  in  1933 and 1941, but it was a
shortsighted  look  into  the  future. This is how
they looked into the future two years ago  when  a
senseless,  incomprehensible, non-guaranteed truce
in Vietnam was arranged, and it was a shortsighted
view.  There  was  such a hurry to make this truce
that  they  forgot  to liberate your own Americans
from  captivity. They were in such a hurry to sign
this  document  that  some 1,300 Americans, "Well,
they  have  vanished; we can get by without them."
How is that done? How  can  this be? Part of them,
indeed, can be missing in action, but the  leaders
of  North  Vietnam  themselves  have admitted that
some  of  them arc still being kept in prison. And
do they give you back your countrymen?
     No, they are not giving them back,  and  they
are always  raising new conditions.  At first they
said,  "Remove  them  from  power." Now, they say,
"Have the United States restore Vietnam, otherwise
it's very difficult for us to find these people."
     If  the  government  of  North   Vietnam  has
difficulty  explaining  to  you what happened with
your  brothers,  with  your American POWs who have
not yet returned, I, on the basis of my experience
in the Archipelago, can explain this quite clearly
There  is  a law in the Archipelago that those who
have  been  treated  the most harshly and who have
withstood  the  most bravely, the most honest, the
most  courageous,  the most unbending, never again
come  out  into  the  world . They are never again
shown  to  the  world  because they will tell such
tales  as  the human mind cannot accept. A part of
your  returned  POWs  told  you  that   they  were
tortured.  This means that those who have remained
were  tortured  even  more,  but did  not yield an
inch.
     These  are  your  best  people These are your
first  heroes,  who,  in  a  solitary combat, have
stood  the  test.  And  today, unfortunately, they
cannot  take  courage from our applause They can't
heat  it  from their solitary cells where they may
either die or sit 30 years, like Raoul Wallenberg,
the Swedish diplomat who was seized in 1945 in the
Soviet  Union. He has been imprisoned for 30 years
and they will not yield him up.
     And you have some  hysterical  public  figure
who said: "I will go to North Vietnam I will stand
on my  knees and beg them to release our prisoners
of  war."  This  isn't  a  political act - this is
masochism.
     To understand properly what detente has meant
all these 40 years - friendships, stabilization of
the situation, trade, etc I would have to tell you
something,  which you have never seen or heard, of
how it looked from the other side. Let me tell you
how it looked.
     Mere  acquaintance  with an American, and God
forbid that you should sit with him in a  cafe  or
restaurant, meant a 10-year term for  suspicion of
espionage.
     In the first volume of  Archipelago I tell of
an  event  which  was not told me by some arrested
person,  but  by all of the members of the Supreme
Court  of  the USSR during those short days when I
was in the limelight under Khrushchev. One  Soviet
citizen was in the United States and on his return
said that in the United States they have wonderful
automobile  roads.  The   KGB  arrested   him  and
demanded  a  term  of 10 years. But the judge said
"I don't object, but there is not enough evidence.
Couldn't you find something else against him?"  So
the judge was exiled to Sakhalin because he  dared
to argue and they gave the other man 10 years. Can
you  imagine  what a lie he told? And what sort of
praise  this  was  of  American  imperialism  - in
America there are good roads? Ten years.
     In 1945-46 through our prison cells passed  a
lot of persons - and  these were not ones who were
cooperating  with Hitler, although there were some
of those, too. These  were not guilty of anything,
but  rather  persons who had just been in the West
and had been  liberated  from  German prison camps
by  the  Americans. This was considered a criminal
act liberated  by the Americans. That means he has
seen  the good life. If he comes back he will talk
about  it.  The most terrible thing is not what he
did  but  what  he  would  talk about And all such
persons  got  10-year  terms.  During Nixon's last
visit to Moscow your American  correspondents were
repotting  in  the western way from the streets of
Moscow.  I  am  going down a Russian street with a
microphone  and asking the ordinary Soviet citizen
"Tell  me  please,  what  do  you  think about the
meeting  between   Nixon   and   Brezhnev?"   And,
amazingly, every last person answered: "Wonderful.
I'm delighted I'm absolutely overjoyed!"
     What  does  this  mean?  If  I'm going down a
street  in Moscow and some American comes up to me
with   a  microphone and asks me something, then I
know  that on the other side of him is a member of
the state security, also with a microphone who  is
recording  everything  I  say.  You think that I'm
going  to say something that is going to put me in
prison  immediately?  Of  course  I   say:   "It's
wonderful; I'm overjoyed."
     But  what is the value of such correspondents
if  they  simply  transfer western techniques over
there without thinking things through?
     You helped us for many years with Lend Lease,
but  we've now done everything to forget this, to
erase it from our minds, not to remember it if  at
all  possible.  And  now,  before I came into this
hall, I delayed my visit to Washington a little in
order  to first take a look at some ordinary parts
of  America,  going  to  various states and simply
talking  with  people.  I  was told, and I learned
this  for  the  first time,  that  in  every state
during  the  war  years there were Soviet-American
friendship  societies  which  collected assistance
for  Soviet  people  -  warm clothes, canned food,
gifts  and  sent  them to the Soviet Union. But we
not  only  never  saw  these;  we  not  only never
received  them  (they  were  distributed somewhere
among  the  privileged  circles)  no one ever even
told  us  that  this was being done I only learned
about  it  for the first time here, this month, in
the United States.
     Everything  poisonous  which  could  be  said
about the United States was said in Stalin's days.
And  all  of this is a heavy sediment which can be
stirred  up  anytime.  Any  day the newspapers can
come out with the headlines "Bloodthirsty American
imperialism  wants to seize control of the world,"
and this poison will rise up from the sediment and
many  people in our country will believe this, and
will be poisoned by it, and will consider  you  as
aggressors.  This  is how detente has been managed
on our side.
     The  Soviet  system  is  so closed that it is
almost impossible for you to understand from here.
Your theoreticians and scholars write works trying
to  understand and explain how things occur there.
Here are some naive explanations which are  simply
funny to Soviet citizens. Some say that the Soviet
leaders have now given up their inhumane ideology.
Not at all. They haven't given it up one bit.
     Some  say  that in the Kremlin there are some
on  the  left,  some  on  the  right. And they are
fighting  with each other, and we've got to behave
in  such  a  way as not to interfere with those on
the left side. This is all fantasy. left... right.
There  is  some  sort of a struggle for power, but
they  all  agree  on  the  essentials . There also
exists  the  following theory, that now, thanks to
the  growth  of technology, there is a technocracy
in the Soviet Union, a growing number of engineers
and  the engineers are now running the economy and
will  soon  determine  the  fate  of  the country,
rather  than  the  party. I will tell you, though,
that  the  engineers  determine  the  fate  of the
economy just as much  as  our  generals  determine
the  fate of the Army. That means zero. Everything
is  done  the  way  the  party demands. That's our
system. Judge it for yourself.

     It's  a  system  where  for  40  years  there
haven't  been  genuine  elections  but   simply  a
comedy,  a  farce.  Thus  a  system  which  has no
legislative  organs.  It's  a  system  without  an
independent press; a system without an independent
judiciary;  where  the  people  have  no influence
either  on  external or internal policy; where any
thought  which  is  different  from what the state
thinks is crushed.
     And  let  me tell you that electronic bugging
in  our country is such a simple thing that it's a
matter  of  everyday  life. You had an instance in
the United States where a bugging caused an uproar
which  lasted  for a  year and a half. For us it's
an  everyday matter. Almost every apartment, every
institution  has  got  its  bug  and  it   doesn't
surprise us in the least - we are used to it.
    It's  a  system  where  unmasked  butchers  of
millions  like Molotov and others smaller than him
have  never been tried in the courts but retire on
tremendous pensions in the greatest comfort.  It's
a system where the show still goes on today and to
which  every foreigner is introduced surrounded by
a  couple of planted agents working according to a
set  scenario.  It's  a  system  where  the   very
constitution  has  never  been carried out for one
single  day;  where  all  the  decisions mature in
secrecy,  high  up  in a small irresponsible group
and then are released on us and on you like a bolt
of lightning.
     And  what  are the signatures of such persons
worth? How could  one  rely on their signatures to
documents  of  detente?  You  yourselves might ask
your specialists now and  they'll  tell  you  that
precisely  in  recent  years  the Soviet Union has
succeeded  in creating wonderful chemical weapons,
missiles, which are even better than those used by
the United States.
     So  what  are  we  to  conclude from that? Is
detente needed or not? Not only is it needed, it's
as necessary as air. It's the only  way  of saving
the  earth  -  instead  of  a  world  war  to have
detente, but a true detente, and if it has already
been ruined by the bad word which we use for  it -
"detente" -  then  we should find another word for
it.
     I  would  say  that  there are very few, only
three, main characteristics of such a true detente.
     In  the   first   place,   there   would   be
disarmament - not only disarmament from the use of
war  but  also  from  the use of violence. We must
stop  using  not  only  the sort of arms which are
used  to  destroy one's neighbors, but the sort of
arms  which  are  used  to  oppress  one's  fellow
countrymen.  It is not detente if we here with you
today  can  spend  our  time  agreeably while over
there  people  are  groaning  and  dying   and  in
psychiatric  hospitals.  Doctors  are making their
evening  rounds,  for  the  third  time  injecting
people with drugs which destroy their brain cells.
     The  second  sign of detente, I would say, is
the following: that it be not one based on smiles,
not on verbal concessions, but it has to be  based
on  a firm foundation. You know the words from the
Bible: "Build not on sand, but on rock." There has
to  be  a  guarantee  that this will not be broken
overnight and for this the other side - the  other
party  to  the  agreement  -  must  have  its acts
subject to public opinion, to the press, and  to a
freely elected parliament. And until such  control
exists there is absolutely no guarantee.
     The  third  simple  condition  - what sort of
detente  is  it  when  they  employ  the  sort  of
inhumane propaganda which is proudly called in the
Soviet  Union  "ideological  warfare."  Let us not
have that. If we're going to be friends,  let's be
friends,  if  we're  going  to  have detente, then
let's  have  detente,  and  an  end to ideological
warfare.

     The Soviet Union and the Communist  countries
can  conduct  negotiations.  They  know  how to do
this. For  a  long  time  they  don' t   make  any
concessions  and  then  they give in a little bit.
Then  everyone  says  triumphantly, "Look, they've
made  a  concession;  it's  time  to   sign."  The
European  negotiators  of the 35 countries for two
years  now  have  painfully  been  negotiating and
their  nerves were stretched to the breaking point
and  they  finally  gave  in. A few women from the
Communist  countries can now marry foreigners. And
a  few  newspapermen are now going to be permitted
to travel  a  little  more  than before. They give
1/1,000th  of  what  natural  law  should provide.
Matters  which  people  should  be able to do even
before  such  negotiations  are   undertaken.  And
already there is joy. And here in the West we hear
many  voices,  saying:   "Look,   they're   making
concessions; it's time to sign."
     During  these  two  years of negotiations, in
all  the countries of eastern Europe, the pressure
has increased, the oppression intensified, even in
Yugoslavia and Romania, leaving  aside  the  other
countries . And  it  is  precisely  now  that  the
Austrian  chancellor says, "We've got to sign this
agreement as rapidly as possible."
     What  sort of an agreement would this be? The
proposed  agreement  is  the  funeral  of  eastern
Europe.  It  means  that  western   Europe   would
finally,  once  and  for  all,  sign  away eastern
Europe,  stating  that  it is perfectly willing to
see eastern Europe be crushed and overwhelmed once
and  for  all, but please don't bother us. And the
Austrian  chancellor  thinks  that  if  all  these
countries are pushed into a mass grave, Austria at
the  very  edge of this grave will survive and not
fall into it also.
     And we, from our lives there, have  concluded
that violence can only be withstood by firmness.
     You  have  to   understand   the   nature  of
communism. The very ideology of communism, all  of
Lenin's  teachings,  are that anyone is considered
to  be  a  fool  who  doesn't take what's lying in
front of him. If you can take it, take it. If  you
can attack, attack. But if there's a wall, then go
back.  And  the  Communist  leaders  respect  only
firmness  and  have  contempt and laugh at persons
who continually give in to them. Your  people  are
now saying - and this is the last quotation  I  am
going  to  give  you  from  the statements of your
leaders  -  "Power,   without   any   attempt   at
conciliation,  will lead to a world conflict." But
I would say that power with continual subservience
is no power at all.

     But  from  our experience I can tell you that
only  firmness  will make it possible to withstand
the  assaults of Communist totalitarianism. We see
many  historic  examples, and let me give you some
of them. Look at little Finland in  1939, which by
its own forces withstood the attack. You, in 1948,
defended  Berlin  only by your firmness of spirit,
and there was no world conflict.  In Korea in 1950
you stood up against the Communists, only by  your
firmness, and there was no world conflict. In 1962
you compelled the rockets to be removed from Cuba.
Again it was only firmness, and there was no world
conflict.  And  the late Konrad Adenauer conducted
firm negotiations with Khrushchev and thus started
a  genuine  detente  with  Khrushchev.  Khrushchev
started to make concessions and if he  hadn't been
removed,  that  winter  he  was  planning to go to
Germany and to continue the genuine detente.
     Let  me  remind  you of the weakness of a man
whose  name  is  rarely associated with weakness -
the  weakness  of  Lenin.  Lenin,  when he came to
power,  in  panic  gave  up  to Germany everything
Germany wanted. Just what it wanted. Germany  took
as  much  as  it wanted and said, "Give Armenia to
Turkey."  And  Lenin  said, "Fine." It's almost an
unknown  fact  but  Lenin petitioned the Kaiser to
act  as  intermediary to persuade the Ukraine and,
thus,  to  make  possible  a boundary  between the
Communist  part  of  Russia  and  the  Ukraine. It
wasn't  a  question  of  seizing  the  Ukraine but
lather of making a boundary with the Ukraine.
     We, we the dissidents of the USSR, don't have
any tanks, we don't have any weapons, we  have  no
organization.  We  don't  have anything. Our hands
are empty. We have only a  heart  and what we have
lived  through in the half century of this system.
And  when  we  have  found  the  firmness   within
ourselves to stand up for our rights, we have done
so. It's only by firmness of spirit that  we  have
withstood.  And  if I am standing here before you,
it's not because of the kindness or  the good will
of communism, not thanks to detente, but thanks to
my own firmness and your firm support.  They  knew
that I would not yield one inch, not one hair. And
when they couldn't do more  they  themselves  fell
back.
     This is not easy. In our conditions this  was
taught  to  me by the difficulties of my own life.
And if you yourselves - any one of you -  were  in
the  same  difficult  situation,  you  would  have
learned  the  same  thing. Take Vladimir Bukovsky,
whose  name  is now almost forgotten. Now, I don't
want  to mention  a  lot  of names because however
many  I  might  mention  there are more still. And
when  we resolve  the  question  with two or three
names it is as if we forget and betray the others.
We should rather remember figures. There are  tens
of thousands of political prisoners in our country
and - by  the calculation of English specialists -
7,000 persons are now under compulsory psychiatric
treatment.  Let's  take  Vladimir  Bukovsky  as an
example. It was proposed to him, "All right, we'll
free  you.  Go  to the West and shut up." And this
young  man,  a  youth  today on the verge of death
said:  "No,  I won't  go  this way. I have written
about  the  persons  whom  you  have put in insane
asylums. You  release them and then I'll go West."
This is what I mean by that firmness of spirit  to
stand up against granite and tanks.
     Finally,  to  evaluate everything that I have
said to you, I would say we need not have had  our
conversation    on    the    level   of   business
calculations.  Why did such and such a country act
in  such  and  such a way? What were they counting
on? We  should rather rise above this to the moral
level and  say  "In  1933 and in 1941 your leaders
and  the  whole  western world, in an unprincipled
way,  made  a  deal with totalitarianism." We will
have to pay for this, some day this deal will come
back to haunt us. For 30 years we have been paying
for  it  and  we're still paying for it. And we're
going to pay for it in a worse way.
     One  cannot  think  only  in the low level of
political  calculations.  It's  necessary to think
also of what is noble, and what is honorable - not
only what is profitable. Resourceful western legal
scholars  have  now  introduced  the  term  "legal
realism."  By  legal  realism,  they  want to push
aside  any  moral evaluation of affairs. They say,
"Recognize  realities;  if such and such laws have
been  established  in  such  and such countries by
violence, these laws still must be recognized  and
respected."
     At  the  present  time  it is widely accepted
among lawyers that law is higher  than  morality -
law   is  something  which  is  worked   out   and
developed,  whereas morality is something inchoate
and  amorphous.  That isn't the case. The opposite
is rather true! Morality is higher than law! While
law is our human attempt to embody in rules a part
of that moral sphere which is above us.  We try to
understand  this  morality, bring it down to earth
and present it in a form of laws. Sometimes we are
more  successful,  sometimes  less.  Sometimes you
actually  have  a  caricature  of   morality,  but
morality is always higher than law. This view must
never  be  abandoned. We must accept it with heart
and soul.
     It is almost a joke now in the western world,
in  the 20th century, to use words like "good" and
"evil."  They  have  become  almost  old-fashioned
concepts,  but  they  are  very  real  and genuine
concepts.  These  are concepts from a sphere which
is higher than us. And instead of getting involved
in    base,    petty,    shortsighted    political
calculations  and  games we have to recognize that
the concentration of World Evil and the tremendous
force  of  hatred  is  there and it's flowing from
there  throughout  the world. And we have to stand
up against it and not hasten to give to  it,  give
to  it,  give  to  it, everything that it wants to
swallow.
     Today there are two major processes occurring
in  the  world.  One is  the one which I have just
described  to you, which has been in progress more
than 30 years. It is  a  process  of  shortsighted
concessions; a process of giving up, and giving up
and giving up and  hoping  that  perhaps  at  some
point the wolf will have eaten enough.
     The  second  process  is one which I consider
the  key  to everything and which, I will say now,
will  bring  all  of  us  our  future;  under  the
cast-iron shell of communism - for 20 years in the
Soviet Union and a shorter time in other Communist
countries - there is occurring a liberation of the
human spirit. New generations are growing up which
are  steadfast  in their struggle with evil; which
are   not    willing   to   accept    unprincipled
compromises;  which  prefer  to  lose everything -
salary, conditions of existence and life itself  -
but  are  not willing to sacrifice conscience; not
willing to make deals with evil.
     This  process has now gone so far that in the
Soviet Union today, Marxism has fallen so low that
it  has  become an anecdote, it's simply an object
of  contempt.  No  serious  person  in our country
today,  not  even  university  and   high   school
students,  can talk about Marxism without smiling,
without laughing.
     But  this  whole  process  of our liberation,
which     obviously     will     entail     social
transformations,  is  slower  than the first one -
the  process  of  concessions. Over there, when we
see  these  concessions, we are frightened. Why so
quickly? Why  so  precipitously? Why yield several
countries a year?
     I  started  by saying that you are the allies
of  our  liberation  movement  in  the   Communist
countries.  And  I  call  upon  you:  let us think
together  and  try  to  see  how we can adjust the
relationship between these two processes. Whenever
you  help  the  persons  persecuted  in the Soviet
Union,  you  not  only  display  magnanimity   and
nobility,  you're  defending  not  only  them  but
yourselves  as  well.  You're  defending  your own
future.
     So  let  us  try and see how far we can go to
stop this senseless and immoral process of endless
concessions  to the aggressor - these clever legal
arguments for why we should give  up  one  country
after  another. Why must we hand over to Communist
totalitarianism   more   and   more   technology -
complex,  delicate,  developed technology which it
needs for  armaments  and  for  crushing  its  own
citizens?  If  we  can  at  least  slow  down that
process  of  concessions,  if  not  stop   it  all
together - and make it possible for the process of
liberation  to continue in the Communist countries
- ultimately these two processes will yield us our
future.
     On our crowded planet there are no longer any
internal  affairs.  The  Communist  leaders   say,
"Don't interfere in our internal affairs.  Let  us
strangle  our  citizens in peace and quiet." But I
tell  you:  Interfere  more and more. Interfere as
much as you can. We beg you to come and interfere.
Understanding  my  own task in the same way I have
perhaps interfered today in your internal affairs,
or at least touched upon them, and I apologize for
it. I have traveled a lot around the United States
and   this   has   been   added   to   my  earlier
understanding  of  it;  what  I  have  heard  from
listening   to   the   radio,   from   talking  to
experienced persons.
     America  -  in  me  and  among my friends and
among  people  who  think the way I do over there,
among all ordinary Soviet citizens - evokes a sort
of  mixture  of  feelings  of  admiration  and  of
compassion.  Admiration  at  the  fact of your own
tremendous  forces  which  you  perhaps don't even
recognize  yourselves.  You're  a  country  of the
future;  a  young  country;  a  country  of  still
untapped  possibilities;  a  country of tremendous
geographical  distances;  a  country of tremendous
breadth  of  spirit;  a  country  of generosity; a
country  of  magnanimity.  But  these  qualities -
strength,  generosity  and  magnanimity  - usually
make  a man and even a whole country trusting, and
this  already  several  times  has  done   you   a
disservice.
     I would like to call upon America to be  more
careful  with  its  trust  and  prevent those wise
persons who are attempting to establish even finer
degrees of justice and even finer legal shades  of
equality  -  some  because  of   their   distorted
outlook,  others  because of short-sightedness and
still  others  out  of selfinterest - from falsely
using  the  struggle  for  peace  and  for  social
justice  to  lead  you  down a false road. Because
they are trying to weaken you; they are  trying to
disarm  your strong and magnificent country in the
face of this fearful threat - one which  has never
been seen before in the history of the world.
     Not only in the history of your country,  but
in  the history of the world. And I call upon you:
ordinary working men of America -  as  represented
here  by  your  trade  union movement - do not let
yourselves  become  weak. Do not let yourselves be
taken  in  the wrong direction. Let us try to slow
down  the  process  of  concessions  and  help the
process of liberation!

Популярность: 45, Last-modified: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 09:58:57 GMT