Ext 6116/46(S) 'Secret Weekly Political Intelligence Summaries, nos 356-416, August 1946-November 1947' [‎18v] (36/978)

8
HHHHHi
the 16th and 25th June, on G. F.
Alexandrov’s “ History of Western Euro
pean Philosophy.” Zhdanov roundly con
demned the book as not satisfying any of
the demands which a text-book of
philosophy should satisfy, went on to casti
gate Soviet philosophers as a body and
concluded by describing in detail the tasks
confronting Soviet philosophy and the
manner in which they should be carried
out. Alexandrov’s book was awarded a
Stalin prize when it first appeared in 1945
and the second edition in 1946 was
reviewed with unqualified approval by
Bolshevik. The solemn condemnation of
this book by the “ arch-ideologist ” of the
Soviet Union in the presence of eighty-
four leading philosophers, who vied with
each other in sycophantic variations on
Zhdanov’s strictures, was obviously inten
ded to remind the philosophical writers
and teachers of the U.S.S.R. that they are
primarily cogs in the Party ideological
machine. “ Our philosophic front,” said
Zhdanov, ” recalls a quiet creek, or a
bivouac far from the field of battle.” But
it is the Soviet Union, “ the country of
victorious Marxism and its philosophers
who must lead the battle against corrupt
and Western bourgeois ideology and strike
smashing blows.” Among Alexandrov’s
most striking errors, according to Zhdanov,
were: (a) a dangerous “objectivism”
towards ‘ ‘ bourgeois philosophy, which
led him to pay tribute to each individual
bourgeois philosopher before criticising
him; (h) a tendency to regard Marxism
not as a ‘ genuine discovery, a revolution
in philosophy,’ but as the culmination of
a prolonged revolutionary development;”
and his failure to give any account of
Russian philosophy, thus “ perpetuating
the bourgeois division into Western and
Eastern culture, and regarding Marxism
as a regional ‘ Western ’ trend.”
Alexandrov was largely to blame, said
Zhdanov, for the failure to organise the
philosophers in the spirit of the ideological
directives of the Central Committee and no
doubt this was his gravest offence.
Alexandrov has apparently retained his
post as head of the Propaganda Depart
ment, but Zhdanov’s complaint that he
“ relies too much in his work on a narrow
circle of close collaborators and admirers
of his talent ” probably implies that less
authority will be concentrated in his
hands in future. His book has dated badly
since 1945 owing to the reorientation
of the Party’s ideological programme.
Zhdanov’s insistence on the complete
incompatibility of Marxism with
“ bourgeois ” philosophies and the debt of
historical Marxism to Russian philoso
phers, shows quite clearly that Soviet
philosophers are expected in future to
evince that intransigent chauvinism now
de rigueur in Soviet intellectual life as a
whole.
Tashkent radio station has for some time
past been broadcasting services in Persian
and also in English “ for the East.”
Though the items broadcast are apparently
mainly of domestic interest, a recent broad
cast greeting “ all progressive and free-
thinking people of the awakening East ”
struck a familiar internationalist note
harking back to the Comintern thunder of
the early Revolutionary years. The speaker
was a certain Khomraev, head of the Uzbek
branch of the all-Union Association for the
Promotion of Cultural Relations with
Foreign Countries and also a member of
the Faculty of Eastern Languages and
Literature in the Central Asian State
University. He described the close
cultural ties which had united all
Eastern peoples for centuries and among
the ‘ ‘ enormous changes ’ ’ brought about
by the war, noted that “ the people
of India, Afghanistan, Iran, East
Turkestan and Arabia no longer are those
of yesterday, in spite of foreign pressure
which is still strongly being brought to bear
upon them.” They would soon “ free
themselves from the political yoke, obscu
rantism and the subjection which has been
forced upon them by the colonial regimes
and imperialism of the West.” In the
present international situation the most
rational means of preventing a new war,
according to Khomraev, was the active
co-operation of all scientists, scholars and
enlightened people of the East.
SCANDINAVIA
Denmark
The Danish Government’s wish for the
abrogation of the Greenland Treaty of
1941 was stressed anew by the Foreign
Minister, M. Rasmussen, in a statement to
the press upon arrival in New York on the
17th October. Intimating his intention of
asking Mr. Marshall for the evacuation of
United States forces from the Island, M.
Rasmussen made it clear that the Danish
request referred not only to naval and
military units, but also to all personnel of
static bases and meteorological stations.
He also revealed that in the negotiations
the Danes would invoke the text of the
Treaty itself, which specifically stated that
the facilities on Greenland were placed at
the disposal of the United States for the