The dimensions of the propaganda war as waged by the authors and publishers
In examining the respective tasks facing American public opinion shapers
and war propagandists, it becomes apparent that the selling of fear and
hate of the enemy via negative messages (181) was vastly more simple
than the chore involved in creating favorable and positive visions of an
ally, especially in case that "ally" enjoyed the largely critical
stance which had been the experience of the Soviet in the U.S. in its more
than two dozen years of existence down to mutual belligerence in late 1941.
Concerning the Japanese, the job could be done largely on the visceral level,
and insulting and taunting songs were a very visible example of what might
be employed. There was no corresponding mode for the salesmanship of devices
productive of warm and appealing dispositions toward the USSR. There the
processes demanded mainly rational discourse, at least for an introductory
intermission, after which emotional messages might become employable after
a time of commonly shared wartime hardships. It is for this reason that
the earliest efforts and gestures had a warily exploratory flavor, for the
most part, and acquired a confident and positive content some time later.
The book world trailed well behind that of magazine and newspaper journalism
in the sales campaign in the West in behalf of Stalinism, a matter of timing
and the nature of their different operational methods. The decade or more
of heavy pro-Soviet salesmanship among authors which came to an end roughly
about the time of the Russo-German pact in 1939 was followed by a confused
interim of much contradictory effort and a strong tendency to shy away from
more Stalinist accolades except among the devoted Party regulars and their
most devoted and ardent fellow travelers, still a healthy contingent. The
opening of the Russo- German phase on the war in mid-194l caught the industry
unprepared to take full advantage of the situation. Only a handful of outright
pro-Stalinist tracts were able to hit the market before Pearl Harbor, and
they had to share the spotlight with tomes which were anything but friendly.
The six months after Pearl was a time for reversing the gears and eventually
launching a flood of pro-Communist volumes, which reached successively higher
land-marks in each of the three years of war still remaining.
The two most blatant pro-Soviet tracts which managed to get produced and
marketed early by major publishers were those by veteran Bolshevik adulators,
Maurice Gershon Hindus' Hitler Cannot Conquer Russia (Doubleday)
and Anna Louise Strong's (Mrs. Joel Shubin) The Soviets Expected It
(Dial). These hurry-up jobs caught reviewers by surprise, and they were
obviously not ready for them yet, even such committed ink and paper warriors
as Clifton Fadiman of the New Yorker. He allotted both works very cool and
skeptical reception, identifying Strong as a "well-known apologist"
for the Soviet, but not Hindus, who was just as prominent in this category.(182)
Foreign Affairs was rather quizzical about Hindus, while mildly calling
attention to Strong's work as mainly a justification for Soviet foreign
policy, contrary to the momentary consensus which thought Stalin's line
had turned out to be an incalculable disaster. A weak and uninformative
review of her book by Elizabeth Barnes in the New York Herald Tribune was
delayed until early in January 1942, but it was fiercely dissected in the
same paper six weeks earlier by Isabel M. Paterson, and a few days later
by William Henry Chamberlain in the Saturday Review of Literature. Chamberlain,
like Lyons a disaffected former admirer of the Bolshevik "experiment,"
called attention to Strong's party line interpretation of everything, remarking
that hers was the least critical study of Russia and apology-for-Stalin
since that published some years earlier by the "Red Dean of Canterbury,"
Hewlett Johnson, which indeed was in a special class by itself.
Chamberlin, who had just become the editor of a new magazine, the Russian
Review, did not deal as harshly with Hindus' book in the New York Times
as had Lyons in the American Mercury, but was reserved as to the outcome
of the war in Eastern Europe. Like everyone else who wanted Hitler defeated
without Stalin taking advantage of the consequences, Chamberlin was caught
in the same bind. Doubting Hindus' cheerful confidence that there was no
fear that Stalin would as Chamberlin put it, "exploit a victory to
spread his brand of dictatorship over a great part of Europe beyond Russia's
proper ethnological frontiers," he held up further judgment on Hindus'
pro-Red tract. At the moment it did not appear that Stalin was in any position
to defeat Hitler without immense help from the capitalist nations, so it
did seem to be excessive to worry about this matter.
Another reviewer who did not handle Hindus too kindly was the Council on
Foreign Relations regular Philip E. Mosely, in the Yale Review, though he
fell short as well of Lyons' critical level. Hindus received the warmest
treatment in the New York Herald Tribune, the alleged organ of New York
plutocracy. His 300-page book, published less than three months after the
outbreak of the Russo- German phase of the war, was hailed by Joseph B.
Phillips, who added, of Hindus, "Of all the authors who have written
about the Soviet Union, Mr. Hindus has been the most consistent and thorough
investigator of the changes which the Bolshevik state has made in the mental
and social makeup of the Russians," and was further commended by Lewis
Gannett in the same newspaper a week later as the author of a new volume
to add to his previously published Red Bread "and other good books
on Russia."
Other major pro-Soviet books bearing 1941 imprints were too late to be paid
much attention until the following year: Walter Duranty's The Kremlin
and the People (Reynal and Hitchcock), Lucien Zacharoff's "We
Made a Mistake"-Hitler (Appleton- Century), and the prize winner
of the early era, Davies' Mission to Moscow (Simon and Schuster),
a book so unabashedly Stalinist that the even-worse moving picture based
on it drew chuckles from Stalin himself when he first viewed it. Billed
by Foreign Affairs the following spring as "one of the best informed
books to appear in recent years on Soviet Russia," the book was already
profiting from the time lag and American belligerency since its publication.
Duranty's book was heavily attacked by Louis Fischer, still another defectee
from the pro-Red claque among the literary men. Though it was not as unsophisticated
a piece of special pleading as that of Zacharoff, who tried to turn the
Red Army's pell-mell retreat across Russia in the closing months of 1941
into a great victory, as had an earlier lot of writers who similarly succeeded
in converting the British disaster at Dunkirk, in the late spring of 1940,
into a stirring triumph.(183)
To be sure, there were works praising Stalin and Russian Communism coming
out in 1941 that nearly matched the "Red Dean," but they were
being published in England, and were unreviewed and unavailable in the U.S.A.,
such as the British Communist Party's spokesman Pat Sloan's How the Soviet
State is Run (Lon- don: Lawrence), Maurice Dobb's Soviet Economy
and the War (London: Routledge), and the Austrian Marxist refugee Erich
Strauss' Soviet Russia (London: Lane), which Woolbert in Foreign
Affairs a year after publication called "one of the better informed
and more thoughtful books on Russia.''(184) But Americans were exposed
primarily to British war writing in the form of speeches and journalism
emanating from much better known public figures such as Julian Huxley's
Democracy Marches (Harper), John Boynton Priestley's Out of the
People (Harper) and the now Churchill- cabinet-minister Ernest Bevin's
The Balance Sheet of the Future (McBride), all of whom seemed pre-occupied
with the postwar consequences of the war, with their talk of future "world
union" and "community of nations" in a "security club"
as well as the opening the war was providing for advancing their own variety
of a British welfare state soviet.(185)
A more stealthy kind of pro-Sovietism was always the negative line of attacking
its enemies (the favorite cover of all Communists was the generalized mantle
"anti-fascist"), one of 1941's prizes being Men of Europe
by "Andre Simone," the pseudonym of one of Europe's most tireless
and ubiquitous Comintern agents, Otto Katz. Well known in the U.S.A. for
his Communist-line book on why France collapsed in 1940, his latest work,
issued by the quasi- Communist publishing house, Modern Age Books, was a
generalized attack on virtually every European politician not in the pro-Soviet
orbit. An occasional reviewer such as Fadiman identified its firm Stalinist
line, contradicted a few days later by the Herald Tribune's Joseph Barnes,
who struggled manfully to disabuse the potential reader of the idea that
"the political line of the book" was Communist. Barnes went along
with the general position of not exposing the writer's real name and Comintern
affiliation, which actually was not done until the following year in the
U.S.A. But in the meantime he stretched the credulity of the people with
any sophistication about foreign politics at all by pleading that Simone's
bitter attack on all the critics of Stalin and his "appreciative"
chapter on the Red dictator could not be interpreted as "in the Moscow
line."(186) Once more a moneyed influential capitalist organ
was supplying a service no openly Communist paper could ever have expected
to make possible.
The release in America of books hostile to Communist Russia had slowed almost
to a halt before the mid-1941 reversal of the trend of world politics in
Eastern Europe. Only Lyons' Red Decade, more a report on pro-Soviet
sympathizing by non- Communist Americans in the 1930s than an anti-Soviet
work, drew much attention in the closing months, with major and mainly non-critical
reviews by Bruce Bliven in the New Republic, Niebuhr in the Nation, Max
Eastman in the New York Times, and Chamberlin in the Saturday Review, as
well as Woolbert in Foreign AJnairs.(187) The serious attacks on
Stalinist Russia in book form were limited, and mainly the work of non-Americans
who had been there, voluntarily or otherwise, as well as being very hard
to come by in the U.S.A. Notable among them were Anton Ciliga's The Russian
Enigma (London: Routledge), a book which actually had been issued in
1940 and comprised the hostile impressions of a Yugoslav Communist who had
resided in the USSR from 1926 to 1935. An even more inimical book was Joseph
Ameel's Red Hell (London: Hale), the author's account of two decades'
residence in the Workers' Fatherland, much of it in prison and penal gulags,
which affronted the Foreign Affairs reviewer, about the only one in the
U.S.A. His account was looked upon as "too lurid and prejudiced to
be taken at face value,"(188) but no amount of luridity or prejudice
in the many books by escapees from Hitler Germany was considered warranting
a caveat in their cases: the sky was the limit in derogation of Nazi Germany.
About the only book generally available in the U.S.A. in the above class
was Lilian T. Mowrer's Arrest and Exile (Morrow), the story of Olga
Kochanska, one of the Poles deported to Russia after occupation of the eastern
two-thirds of Poland by the Red Army in the fall of 1940. The review by
Katharine Woods in the New York Times stressed Mme. Kochanska's scathing
contempt for Russian Communism after experiencing it for awhile, though
one might have questioned her dismissal of it all as insignificant. But
even here an anti-Hitler lesson was inserted in the estimate, as it was
the subject's opinion that Hitler should never have been allowed to "grow
great" as a result of fear of Russian Bolshevism.(189)
Still another class of escapee literature regaling the American public in
1941 were such sagas as Arthur Koestler's Scum of the Earth (Macmillan),
an account of his residence in French concentration camps for those who
fled Spain after the demise of the Communist-led resistance against Franco,(190)
and Lion Feuchtwanger's The Devil in France (Viking), a similar
story of incarceration in French concentration camps after apprehension
as an enemy alien in the summer of l940.(191) Still another was the
German refugee Erich Fromm's Escape from Freedom (Farrar and Rinehart).
The former Frankfurt-born psychoanalyst, descended from a long line of rabbis,
seemed to be interested, in this book, which became immensely influential
in America, primarily in why people would abandon their "liberties"
and "take refuge in a totalitarian regime" only in Germany,(192)
choosing to ignore Stalinist Russia, many magnitudes more totalitarian than
authoritarian Germany. The war call in all these was mainly subliminal,
for the most part, however.
The forthright appeals to sally forth came mainly from American newspapermen
and were more oriented toward a pro- British position, indicating that they
had been in formation some time before mid-1941. The most influential of
these were Leland Stowe's No Other Road to Freedom (Knopfl, a turgid
brief by this Chicago Daily News foreign correspondent, known best for his
later admissions of having fabricated the stories of Norway's fall in 1940
as the work of internal traitors, as well as his flustered post-war pro-Communist
apologetics, and that of Joseph C. Harsch, Pattern of Conquest (Doubleday),
the Christian Science Monitor's Berlin correspondent for the previous 18
months. More generalized was Pierre van Paassen's That Day Alone
(Dial), a collection of semi-fictional yarns highly praised by leftist reviewers,
especially Hindus, and bearing the main message of the unavoidability of
a generalized postwar planned economy.(193) More strongly Anglophile-oriented
were Forrest Davis' The Atlantic System (Reynal and Hitchcock) and
H.R. Knickerbocker, Is Tomorrow Hitler's? (Reynal and Hitchcock).
Davis, the one time New York Daily News rewrite man, was most appreciated
by the well-entrenched elite Anglophile establishment, while Knicker- bocker,
known even better as a radio than a newspaper journalist, became particularly
involved in incensed attacks on American opponents of the Roosevelt war
drive, heaping ferocious abuse on Lindbergh in particular. Still others
concerned specialized attacks on external German programs, such as Smash
Hitler's International (Greystone), by the improbable team of the psychological
war specialist Edmond Taylor, the liberal economist Eliot Janeway, and the
ardent apologist for both Russian and Chinese Communism, Edgar Snow.(194)
By comparison with all this, the publishing world exposed Americans
to little literature involving a strategic war concept dealing with Japan.
Nothing rivaling the Taylor-Janeway-Snow recipe for Germany came out in
1941, the last such being the New York Times cable editor Robert Aura Smith's
Our Future in Asia (Viking) of the previous fall, an explicit summary
of how Washington, London and Wall Street viewed the Far East, with its
exhortation for a swift and presumably easy war against Japan to preserve
the British colonial status quo especially in Southeast Asia. The 1941 fare
varied from the breezy tourist-style Honorable Enemy (Duell, Sloan
and Pearce) by Ernest O. Hauser to the bitter denunciation of Japan by the
ancient Korean, Syngman Rhee, the "president of the provisional Korean
Government in exile" since 1911, Japan Inside Out (Revell).
In between there were the stiff establishment treatise by Paul M.A. Linebarger,
The China of Chiang Kai-shek (Boston: World Peace Foundation), an
idealization which Chiang himself was to obliterate with his own two books
two years later, and a pair of volumes by supporters of China's still almost
submerged-from-view brand of Communism. The message of T.A. Bisson's American
Policy in the Far East, 1931-1941 (Institute of Pacific Relations) and
Nym Wales' China Builds for Democracy (Modern Age Books) was anything
but obscure. The latter author, in reality Helen Foster Snow, the wife of
Edgar Snow, idealized "industrial cooperatives" in the Red- occupied
areas of northwest China, while Bisson, a veteran apologist for Chinese
Communism in both liberal and Communist papers, summarized much earlier
writing for a Communist- dominated organization which was to become nationally
known only after the anti-Communist reaction of the early Cold War set in
a half dozen years later.(195)
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
✳ ✳ ✳