Frontline and Policy IssuesSnow: There seems to be a contradiction between the Kuomintang’s understanding of the political foundation of the anti-Japanese war and that of the Communist Party. The Communist Party repeatedly emphasizes that the united front is the political foundation of this war (see Mao Zedong’s “On Protracted War,” “On the New Stage,” etc.), yet this term does not appear in Kuomintang documents or speeches. From the Kuomintang’s perspective, the political foundation of the war lies in the subordination of the Communist Party and all other parties to the Kuomintang’s dictatorship. For example, in Chongqing I interviewed General Zhang Qun and asked for his opinion on this matter. He stated that there could be no talk of a united front; China has only one legitimate party and one legitimate government—the Kuomintang. The “Border Region Government” is entirely illegal and will ultimately be eliminated. General Jiang Dingwen told me the same thing in Xi’an. He said that besides the Kuomintang, there are no other legitimate political parties in China. After reaching an agreement with the Chairman, the Communist Party “no longer exists.” Therefore, there can be no question of a united front. The Communist Party has no legal status in China, although former Communists, as part of the Kuomintang army, are permitted to maintain certain offices and warehouses. Last year, Chen Lifu made similar remarks. Recently, Chairman Chiang Kai-shek told a German journalist, “There is not a single Communist left in China,” which clearly denies the Communist Party’s legal existence and, by extension, the very concept of a united front. What is your response to these claims? Where does the legal basis for the united front lie? And where does the Communist Party’s legal standing reside? If one party denies the existence of another, can there really be a nominal united front between them?Mao Zedong: The united front has existed for quite some time. In the hearts of the people and in their conversations, they acknowledge not only the existence of a nominal united front but also a real, substantive one. However, there is a small group of people who, despite actually recognizing the united front, verbally attempt to deny it. We call these individuals “A-Qists,” and their approach is rooted in A-Qism. In Lu Xun’s famous novel “The True Story of Ah Q,” Ah Q consistently makes mistakes yet always believes he is right. If you don’t believe it, just read the book. There are those who, like Ah Q and Hitler, deliberately ignore the facts. As you may recall, Hitler once claimed that the Soviet Union was merely a name—that in reality, no such country existed. But after receiving some education, he eventually acknowledged the Soviet Union’s existence—in fact, both its nominal and actual forms (he signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union—note by Snow). Among China’s A-Qists, many will also evolve over time. Those who currently deny the existence of a united front may well come to recognize it in the future. Recently, I met an old Kuomintang member named Zhang Ji (who had visited Yan’an as part of a delegation to comfort troops on various fronts). He did not deny the existence of either the united front or the Communist Party. Perhaps some Kuomintang members only deny the Communist Party’s existence when no Communists are physically present. They may assume that as long as there are no Communists around, there can be no united front—at least not at that moment. As for our subordination to the Kuomintang’s dictatorship, some Kuomintang members may genuinely believe this to be true. They have the freedom to think so, just as they have the freedom to eat and sleep. Personally, I support Sun Yat-sen’s principles of popular rights and do not interfere with their beliefs. In fact, I am very busy and have no time to concern myself with such trivial matters. I am not fully aware of how other groups think, but I do know that the Communist Party has been completely independent from the very beginning, never sacrificing its independence for a single day, hour, or even half-minute. The Communist Party has never yielded to any other party or individual. To force us to submit would be the most difficult task imaginable. You mentioned that Chairman Chiang Kai-shek allegedly denies the existence of the Communist Party in China, but I find this claim hard to believe. Mr. Chiang is a statesman; he possesses not only political common sense but much more. Moreover, as a leader of the anti-Japanese resistance, he should not make such statements. Finally, if he truly said this, would it not contradict his previous statements? On November 13, 1937, Mr. Chiang issued a declaration fully acknowledging the Communist Party’s legal status. Therefore, I believe it is highly unlikely that he would make such a statement, as it lacks both political rationale and contradicts his earlier remarks. That said, the Communist Party’s legal status has indeed been only partially realized. The Chinese government has never fulfilled its 1937 promise to grant the Communist Party full legal recognition. Other parties outside the Kuomintang likewise lack legal standing. This serves as further evidence that China is not a constitutional, democratic, and unified nation and that the rule of law is severely lacking. It is no wonder that the Chinese people and various political parties have been calling for an end to the “period of tutelage.” Since the Xi’an Incident, and particularly since mid-1937, when the Executive Yuan formally approved legislation granting legal status to the Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia Border Region Government, Chairman Chiang has recognized this government. If it were illegal, why would such legislation have been passed, and why would the central government have consented to the appointment of its officials? The chaotic manner in which senior officials have expressed themselves can only indicate their extremely low efficiency. Efforts must be made to improve it.Snow: In its foreign policy, China emphasizes that its struggle is on the side of democracy against fascism and that it belongs to the camp of democratic nations. Based on this, can we say that China is a democratic country? Has China made any progress toward democracy since the start of the war? Have the people gained any political rights? Here I am referring not to conditions in the border regions or guerrilla zones, but to free China directly governed by the central government.Mao Zedong: The sole basis for making such a claim lies in our country’s official name: the Republic of China—the People’s Republic. However, in practice, this basis is clearly insufficient. Sun Yat-sen’s principles of popular rights have been in place for decades, yet they have never been fully implemented. Hundreds of millions of Chinese people have long hoped to see them realized, and perhaps one day they will be. Only then will we have additional grounds to advocate for democratic principles. I hope that day comes soon. We need democracy—not merely as diplomatic rhetoric—but, more importantly, as a prerequisite for achieving victory in the anti-Japanese war.Snow: If China has not made any progress toward democracy during the war, what changes have actually occurred in the nature of the central government? Is it still a Kuomintang-dominated dictatorial regime?Mao Zedong: While the government itself has not fundamentally changed, its policies have undergone some modifications. Most importantly, the government is indeed responsible for initiating the anti-Japanese war. However, other policies—particularly those related to improving people’s livelihoods and implementing the principles of popular rights—have remained unchanged. We cannot say that the nature of the government has changed. It is still a one-party authoritarian regime. This has caused widespread dissatisfaction among the people, and the situation must be rectified. Recently, during a session of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference held in Chongqing, it was reported that Chairman Chiang supported a proposal to mobilize talent from all parties to serve the nation. The conference itself recommended ending the “period of tutelage” and establishing a constitutionally elected government. Across the country, there are calls for these domestic reforms. Failure to implement them could lead to the disintegration of China. (During another conversation, I asked Mao Zedong whether, if offered cabinet positions, the Communist Party would actually join a coalition government. I had heard that in 1938, when the government was based in Hankou, the Communist Party had been offered one or two junior ministerial posts, which they declined. It was said that the Party feared opposition from foreign powers and that such a move might encourage dissidents to embrace compromise and defeatism. Furthermore, the Communists were reluctant to assume responsibility in a government where they could not control policy. Mao denied that anyone had ever proposed offering the Communist Party any cabinet positions. He said that if such an offer were made, the Party would gladly participate.)Snow: Has the social base of the Chinese government changed as a result of the war?Mao Zedong: Yes, there have been some changes. The wealthiest individuals along the coast and in cities along the Yangtze River have largely become collaborators or quasi-collaborators. Wang Jingwei is a prime example of this group. We can no longer rely on this class to support the government. The foundation of today’s anti-Japanese government should primarily rest on the middle class and the broad masses of peasants. These two classes are the mainstays of the resistance movement.Snow: Are you suggesting that the government today represents the middle class and peasants more than it did in the past?Mao Zedong: Not yet—but it should. If the government does not ensure greater representation of these classes in decision-making, it will inevitably remain weak and ineffective. Only in its war policies does the government represent a broader segment of society than landlords and the bourgeoisie; in its domestic policies concerning people’s livelihoods and popular rights, the interests it represents remain the same as before the war.Snow: Given that the Communist Party has abandoned its emphasis on class struggle, abolished the Soviet system, submitted to the leadership of the Kuomintang and its government, adopted the Three Principles of the People, ceased confiscating the property of landlords and capitalists, and halted organizational activities and propaganda work in the Nationalist-controlled areas, many people now argue that the Communist Party is no longer a social revolutionary but merely a reformist, with goals and methods aligned with the bourgeoisie. How do you respond to this view? Do you still maintain that the Chinese Revolution is an anti-imperialist, anti-feudal revolution that may eventually transition into a socialist revolution, and that the Communist Party bears the responsibility of leading the nation toward that revolution?Mao Zedong: We have always been social revolutionaries; we have never been reformists. The Chinese Revolution has two primary objectives. The first is to accomplish the tasks of the national democratic revolution. The second is to carry out the socialist revolution. The latter must be realized, and realized thoroughly. Currently, the revolution is of a national democratic character, but at some point it will transition into a socialist revolution. The “preparations” for the socialist revolution outlined in the Chinese Revolutionary Program will eventually become its “reality”—unless our efforts at this stage fail. If they fail, a socialist revolution will not come about anytime soon.Snow: Is it also possible for China, before or after completing its anti-imperialist, anti-feudal revolution, to develop into a fascist dictatorship? Are fascist forces in China strengthening or weakening?Mao Zedong: Fascist dictatorship is impossible in China. Half of the country has already fallen under colonial rule, and the other half faces the same danger. China’s economy remains semi-feudal. For these reasons, our fascist dreamers have no future. If we once referred to certain Chinese political organizations as fascist, and if we are now talking about such forces, we can see that they are weakening rather than strengthening. However, labeling these forces as “fascist” is misleading, because China (in terms of economic development) is far too weak to sustain a fascist movement. Those who harbor different ideas and attempt to create “fascism” in China are destined to break their own necks.Snow: The Communist Party claims to lead China’s workers and peasants. Apart from its leadership role among peasants in the border regions and its command over the Red Army, which includes a significant proletarian component, how can the Party practically exercise leadership over China’s industrial proletariat—some 80–90 percent of whom live in Japanese-occupied areas? By what means does the Party educate both peasants and workers about the anti-feudal purpose of the current revolution?Mao Zedong: Yes, we do claim to lead the workers and peasants in this way, through both political and organizational leadership. In the Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia Border Region, within the guerrilla zones under the Eighth Route Army’s jurisdiction, we not only have political leadership but also organizational authority. Elsewhere, the Party’s leadership is more indirect, but as long as peasants and workers are organized according to the Communist Party’s core principles, they are effectively under our guidance. (Following this logic, it is evident that Communists believe all armies participating in the anti-Japanese war fall under their influence, since resisting Japan is the central requirement of the revolution at this stage. Others immediately dismiss this as mere wishful thinking, but it is precisely this logic that enables Communists to tolerate other restrictions on their activities. As long as the war continues, they consider the revolutionary struggle to be ongoing, and thus the time for “transformation” is drawing nearer day by day—note by Snow.)You asked how the Communist Party educates workers and peasants about resisting Japan and fighting feudalism outside Communist-controlled areas. Propaganda can play a role, and indeed it has done so to some extent. Through organizing anti-Japanese activities, considerable achievements have been made, and it has also helped raise public awareness of the necessity of overthrowing feudalism.Snow: In your view, has the war strengthened or weakened feudal forces in China so far? Where in the Communist Party’s current program is the anti-feudal objective reflected? Is this anti-feudal goal being pursued outside the border regions? If the anti-feudal revolutionary program cannot be implemented nationwide simultaneously, can the war still be won?Mao Zedong: At this stage of the revolution, the primary task is to combat Japanese imperialism. The anti-feudal mission may temporarily take a backseat to the main objective of resisting Japan. During this period, our anti-feudal program includes demands for nationwide democracy and measures such as rent and interest reductions to improve people’s living standards. Democratic movements are widely underway not only among workers and peasants but also among young students, intellectuals, progressive writers, scientists, politicians, and soldiers. The main obstacle facing these movements is an outdated political system. The challenge lies in how to reform this system (without jeopardizing the war), because without democracy, the anti-Japanese war cannot be won. War and democracy are two sides of the same sword. Some pretend to support the war while refusing to embrace democratic principles. In reality, they are unwilling to wield either blade. They drag the anti-imperialist struggle toward failure.International IssuesSnow: Following the signing of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, there were concerns in Chongqing that a similar pact between Japan and the Soviet Union might follow. At one point, the Soviet Union did indeed urge Japan to sign such an agreement. Do you think this is feasible now? If not, why not?Mao Zedong: If such a pact would hinder the Soviet Union’s support for China, then it should not be concluded. However, if it does not impede this assistance, then it can be signed without causing harmful consequences. The interests of the Soviet Union and the global liberation movement are aligned, as are those of the national revolutions in semi-colonial and colonial territories. The Soviet Union will not enter into a treaty that would undermine these movements.Snow: I have read your comments on the signing of the German-Soviet Pact. It seems you believe the Soviet Union is unlikely to become involved in the European war… Do you think that as long as the Soviet Union is not attacked, even if Nazi Germany appears to be on the verge of victory, the Soviet Union will still remain neutral?Mao Zedong: The Soviet Union will not participate in this war because both sides are imperialist powers, and it is essentially a conflict between two bandits vying for dominance and control over peoples worldwide. Neither side has any moral justification. The Soviet Union will remain neutral in such a conflict. However, the Soviet Union does not adopt a neutral stance in all wars. It will not remain neutral in just wars of liberation. This has been its consistent policy for ten years. For example, from 1915 to 1917, the Soviet Union supported the Chinese Revolution. From 1936 to 1938, it supported the Spanish Republican Army. Since 1937, the Soviet Union has been assisting China in its anti-Japanese war. On September 17, Soviet troops entered Poland to liberate the Belarusian and Ukrainian peoples. The Soviet Union will continue to support national liberation movements in colonies and semi-colonies and will back any popular (social revolutionary) movements that arise in capitalist countries. The Soviet Union will support revolutionary wars but remain neutral in purely counter-revolutionary conflicts. As for the outcome of the current European war, the Soviet Union will not be intimidated by threats from the victorious powers—whether Britain or Germany. Once the Soviet Union is attacked, it will receive support from peoples around the world and from ethnic minorities in colonies and semi-colonies. Today, the center of the anti-Soviet movement is no longer Nazi Germany. It resides in the democratic nations led by Britain. Under Chamberlain’s leadership, the governments of these so-called democratic countries are assembling vast battlefronts, attempting to draw Italy and Japan into the conflict. Their aim is to first defeat Germany and then turn their attention to the Soviet Union. The international situation has undergone profound changes.Snow: If I understand correctly, you seem to see no difference between fascism and the cause of democratic nations like Britain and France. Mao Zedong: Judging from their roles in this war, there is no difference. Chamberlain is organizing a global front to encircle the Soviet Union, China’s anti-Japanese resistance, and Germany. His goal is to end the war in China, overthrow Hitler, isolate the Soviet Union, and thereby pave the way for an anti-Soviet movement. As a leader of international reactionary capitalism, Chamberlain understands that if he fails to do so, the anti-Japanese war will succeed, Germany will regain its colonies, India will achieve independence, and his own regime and that of his allies will collapse.Snow: Surely Chamberlain’s ambitions are not that grand, are they? Do you really believe that while fighting Germany, Chamberlain’s ultimate goal is to destroy Russia? In my view, Chamberlain is already busy enough dealing with Hitler and preparing for a larger campaign against Russia. Wouldn’t it be more logical for him to seek friendship with Russia in order to defeat Hitler? Even if he does plan to deal with Stalin in the future, does this mean that Chamberlain previously intended to divert Hitler eastward, or is he actively planning to do so now, or hopes to achieve this through the current war?Mao Zedong: He has thought about it in the past, is planning it now, and hopes to realize it in the future. Why? Because Chamberlain’s problems go beyond Hitler; there is also the issue of Indian rebellion and unrest among his own people, while the Soviet Union supports revolutionary movements in colonies and among peoples in capitalist countries. This is why Roosevelt sympathizes with Chamberlain.Snow: What impact will the European theater of war have on Japan’s strategy in the Far East and its foreign policy?Mao Zedong: Japan will exploit the European war to achieve two objectives. The first is to intensify its aggression against China, and the second is to expand its invasion into Southeast Asia. However, Japan must first conquer China, and its primary focus remains there. Japan will not participate in the European war. By avoiding involvement, it can continue to trade with Britain, France, and the United States, and may even borrow money from them. Without foreign trade and loans, Japan would find it difficult to conquer China. Germany is now preoccupied with its own affairs in Europe and can no longer devote attention to Japan. The Soviet Union has limited trade relations with Japan and will not lend it a single copper coin. The key question is whether Britain, France, and the United States will help Japan destroy China—a very serious issue. Indeed, Japan’s initial objectives in the European war are quite ambitious. However, regardless of whether Britain, France, and the United States are defeated in Europe, Japan will always concentrate its fleet in the south. At that point, Japan may attack the Dutch East Indies, as this archipelago lies on the front line of the Anglo-Japanese conflict. It is an important British sphere of influence but not a British colony. Japanese militarists covet the Dutch East Indies for its abundant resources and large population. If Britain, France, and the United States adopt policies that enable Japan to defeat China, they are essentially arming Japan to turn around and attack themselves later. Japan hopes to emerge stronger from this world war. Roosevelt also wants to profit from the war. He aims to secure leadership in the capitalist world. He wants Chamberlain as his secretary, Japan as one of his guards—his rearguard—and Hitler and Mussolini as his vanguard. However, he shakes his head at Stalin, saying that Stalin is of no use to him.Snow: So, do you believe that the European war could have a decisive impact on the outcome of the Sino-Japanese War?Mao Zedong: If Britain, France, and the United States provide material assistance to Japan, then it could have a decisive impact… Otherwise, relying on self-reliance, China can and should defeat Japan amidst this global war and chaos.Snow: Clearly, the European war will significantly weaken Britain and France’s position in China. This may mean both a reduction in their ability to resist Japan and a decline in their capacity to support China. Consequently, the importance of Soviet aid to China has greatly increased, especially the supply lines from the northwest. Similarly, the Soviet Union’s policies toward Japan via Siberia and Outer Mongolia have also become more significant. Could Soviet assistance to China increase to the point of compensating for the weakening of British and French aid?Mao Zedong: If China continues to fight steadfastly and cooperates closely with the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union’s assistance will not only offset the reduction in British and French aid but will far exceed its original scale. Fundamentally, Britain and France have never truly “assisted” China. All they have done so far is adopt a policy of non-interference in the Sino-Japanese war, rather than actively supporting China.Snow: In this regard, could the Soviet Union’s enhanced assistance to China’s liberation movement take a form similar to its support for the liberation of Belarus and Ukraine? For example, there is a powerful anti-Japanese national liberation movement in Manchuria, and similar movements exist in Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang. Could the Soviet Union dispatch armed expeditions to assist these liberation movements?Mao Zedong: According to Leninist principles, such a possibility does exist… However, the fundamental issue is whether the Chinese people themselves are willing to fight.Snow: The Soviet Union reached an agreement with Nazi Germany to occupy Poland, which made it appear as though the Soviet Union was collaborating with the Axis powers to divide up weaker nations. Many people likely perceive it this way. Regardless, the new Soviet policy signifies the collapse of the so-called anti-fascist united front among democratic nations (including the Soviet Union). How will this affect China’s political slogans in the anti-Japanese war? China has consistently called on democratic capitalist countries to provide support against fascist Japan. Have China’s past diplomatic slogans now become obsolete?Mao Zedong: With the outbreak of the European war, the global political landscape has undergone profound changes. Germany has abandoned its anti-Soviet and anti-Comintern policies (literally!). On the other hand, the so-called democratic nations have begun using the war to dismantle democratic systems. These so-called democratic countries have become centers of anti-Soviet, anti-Communist, anti-democratic, and anti-popular movements, turning into enemies of liberation movements in colonies and semi-colonies. Both Germany and Britain are imperialist powers. Fascist Germany and democratic Britain are both imperialist bandits. Their conflict is an imperialist war—an imposition upon their respective peoples and the Soviet people. Now, Britain has become the epicenter of global reactionary forces. Chamberlain is the world’s number one public enemy. Previously, the Soviet Union and various communist parties made great efforts to persuade Chamberlain to cooperate with the Soviet Union in resisting fascism. However, the reactionary bourgeois government led by Chamberlain ultimately rejected this proposal, refusing to collaborate with the Soviet Union, thereby expanding the scope of the first imperialist war. Chamberlain never showed any sincerity during the Soviet-British negotiations. He was determined not to reach any agreement. In doing so, he chose war over peace, because it was clear that if the Soviet Union were excluded from cooperation, peace could not be guaranteed. Even Lloyd George, a prominent spokesman for the bourgeoisie, acknowledged this fact. Meanwhile, Germany took advantage of Chamberlain’s policy, renouncing its stance against the Comintern and signing a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union. With the abandonment of Nazi Germany’s anti-Soviet and anti-Comintern policies, the boundaries that once separated fascist and democratic capitalist countries lost their meaning and ceased to serve as a political measuring stick. The phase of striving to establish a united front between the bourgeoisie and its government with the Soviet Union has passed. Based on the new circumstances, we need a new standard to distinguish between countries. How should we categorize nations? One category comprises countries that wage or facilitate unjust imperialist bandit wars and openly and actively support such conflicts. Another consists of nations that support people’s liberation wars. The policies of communist parties must be adjusted accordingly, as their current practices are no longer appropriate. In this new context, the countries eligible to join the World Revolutionary Front no longer include the bourgeoisie of so-called democratic nations. This class has become an enemy of oppressed peoples. This revolutionary front should now consist of the following components: (1) the proletariat and petty bourgeoisie in capitalist countries; (2) anti-imperialist forces in semi-colonial and colonial countries, including the proletariat and a portion of the bourgeoisie; and (3) the Soviet Union.In my speech on September 14, I stated that the imperialist war has entered a new phase, characterized by two features: First, the partial war has evolved into a comprehensive one. (This refers to Stalin’s remark about the first imperialist war, made during his March address to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union—note by Snow.) Second, the composition of the World Revolutionary Front has shifted from complex to simple. Now, the slogan of the World Revolutionary Front has become: Oppose imperialist wars. Defeat counter-revolutionary wars through revolutionary means. Support people’s revolutionary wars through revolutionary means. Support revolutionary movements among peoples in colonies and semi-colonies. These slogans apply equally to all countries, including fascist nations and so-called democratic countries that use war as a means to achieve fascism. China’s anti-Japanese war is part of the World Revolutionary Front. China’s national front against Japan contributes to the people’s front in capitalist countries, while the national revolutionary front in each colony and semi-colony contributes to the people’s front in capitalist countries—and this contribution is mutual. Within this World Revolutionary Front, the Soviet Union assists all participants, and in turn, all participants support the Soviet Union. This mutual support allows us to counter the reactionary bourgeois united front of various nations. (Here I interjected, asking Mao Zedong why, given that Germany is also an imperialist power and indistinguishable from Britain and France, the Soviet Union would supply Germany with large quantities of wheat, oil, and other war materials, thereby participating in Germany’s imperialist adventure. I also inquired why the Soviet Union continued to lease oil fields on Sakhalin to Japan or grant Japan fishing rights—a valuable concession that enabled Japan to export substantial amounts of fish, securing foreign credit to purchase weapons and launch an “imperialist bandit war” aimed at “liberating the semi-colonial Chinese people.” Mao replied that this was a complex issue requiring examination of the policy outcomes before answering. He was unclear about the terms under which the Soviet Union sold oil to Japan. In any case, the Soviet Union did not provide any weapons to Germany or Japan, and maintaining regular trade relations does not equate to participation in war. I pointed out that in modern warfare, providing tanks and aircraft to belligerents is hardly distinguishable from supplying fuel for those very tanks and aircraft. Why, then, is the United States considered to be participating in Japan’s imperialist aggression against China when it supplies war materials, while the Soviet Union, which provides the same materials to both Germany and Japan, is not deemed to be taking part in Germany’s European war or Japan’s Asian war? Mao chuckled and admitted that the distinction between trading war materials and supplying war machinery is not significant. He emphasized that the crucial factor lies in whether a country’s policies genuinely support imperialist wars or revolutionary liberation struggles. Judging by these criteria, the Soviet Union’s position is beyond reproach. The Soviet Union has actively supported China’s revolutionary wars from 1915 to 1917, aided the Spanish Revolution, and continues to support China’s revolutionary endeavors. The Soviet Union consistently stands on the side of just revolutionary wars and never takes sides in imperialist conflicts, even if it maintains routine trade relations with both warring parties. I remarked that since this was an “off-the-record” question, I would not publish his comments. He responded that he did not mind; since his secretary had already documented everything, it was already “on record” for him. Therefore, I have included the key points of our conversation here—note by Snow.)As for the Polish issue, it requires consideration from multiple perspectives: from the viewpoints of the German, British, French, and Polish governments; from the perspective of the Polish people; and finally, from the Soviet viewpoint. Germany’s actions in Poland constitute a full-fledged imperialist invasion aimed at plundering the Polish people. Poland serves as a strategic front for Britain and France; Hitler’s attack on Poland is equivalent to destroying one wing of their joint war effort. Naturally, we oppose such a war. For Britain and France, Poland is an object of financial exploitation. They encouraged Poland to become part of their imperialist front in order to use Poland as leverage against Hitler’s attempts to redistribute the spoils of imperialist conquest. Since this was an objective condition for Britain and France to participate in the war concerning Poland, it constitutes an imperialist stance and should not be supported. Poland itself has a semi-fascist government ruled by reactionary Polish bourgeoisie. It cruelly exploits Polish workers and peasants and ruthlessly suppresses Polish democrats and progressives. At the same time, its pan-Polish policies oppress numerous ethnic minorities within Poland, including eight million Belarusians, three million Ukrainians, and half a million Germans. It applies imperialist policies toward these minority groups. Under the direction of British financial capital, the Polish government voluntarily mobilized its people to serve as cannon fodder. It willingly became a component of an international financial capital-driven reactionary front, which is contrary to the interests of the Polish people. For a decade, the Polish government has consistently been hostile to the Soviet Union. During the Soviet-British talks, it refused Soviet assistance. Just two weeks later, it succumbed to Hitler’s iron heel, exposing its incompetence. A Polish army of 1.5 million proved utterly incapable of mounting any meaningful resistance, leaving the Polish people at the mercy of the Nazis. In contrast, poorly equipped Spanish militias in Madrid managed to hold out for two years, whereas the Polish government’s forces were annihilated within two weeks! In China, the Eighth Route Army defended the Jin-Cha-Ji battlefield for two years, holding off the Japanese, while Poland lacked a base like Wutai Mountain or an Eighth Route Army. All these weaknesses clearly demonstrate the Polish government’s malice and ineptitude. We should not waste our tears on imperialist Poland.Finally, let us turn to the Soviet Union. When Nazi Germany invaded Poland, the Soviet Union faced the following dilemma: Should it allow the entire Polish population to fall victim to Nazi persecution, or liberate the ethnic minorities in eastern Poland? The Soviet Union chose the former option. Eastern Poland is home to eight million Belarusians and three million Ukrainians. This territory was ceded from the nascent Soviet Socialist Republics as part of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and subsequently fell under the rule of the reactionary Polish government. Today, the Soviet Union is no longer weak or inexperienced; it has simply reclaimed its own land and liberated it. News reports from the front describe how Polish minorities welcomed the Red Army. People brought food to the soldiers, embraced them, and cheered them as saviors. Such scenes were absent wherever German and French forces occupied Polish territory. This demonstrates that the Soviet Union’s war this time was just and aimed at liberating minorities and oppressed peoples.Snow: However, the Yomiuri Shimbun reported that wherever the Japanese army promoted the New Order in East Asia, it received similarly enthusiastic welcomes. I dare say that the German press has also been telling the German public that Poles warmly welcomed German bombs. These days, conquered peoples not only submit but also congratulate their conquerors—this is a common occurrence. Mao Zedong burst out laughing and replied: No one believes the Yomiuri Shimbun’s report. Although I have never seen Germans claim to have been welcomed in Poland, I am confident that if they did make such a claim, no one would believe them. As for the reports of the Red Army’s warm reception, there were independent observers present on the scene who could personally verify whether it was true… Finally, it should be noted that the Soviet Union’s main challenge at present lies in Chamberlain’s attempt to implement his longstanding policy. On the one hand, he is blockading Germany and exerting immense pressure on its western front. On the other hand, he is attempting to win over Italy and Japan while simultaneously placating Germany. He has offered Hungary and Romania to Hitler in exchange for abolishing the German-Soviet Pact, hoping to redirect Germany’s aggression eastward. These self-serving maneuvers of Chamberlainism will not only continue today but will also persist in the future. The Soviet Union’s occupation of Poland was intended to liberate Belarusians and Ukrainians, reclaim Soviet territory, and at the same time serve as a concrete measure to consolidate the German-Soviet Pact and thwart Chamberlain’s conspiracy. Recent news indicates that this policy has achieved great success.**Once again, I asked Mao Zedong whether, in his view, the Soviet occupation of Poland was primarily driven by military-strategic considerations or by political motives. Mao seemed to believe that strategic factors were dominant, but that this action had both military and political purposes. The political aspect was not directly linked to the global conditions of the revolutionary movement, but rather to the historical relationship between the Soviet Union and eastern Poland. On the other hand, the German-Soviet Pact was not a political matter but a strategic military necessity. Stalin sought this pact to prevent Chamberlain from forming an anti-Soviet alliance. Mao asserted that Chamberlain had clearly indicated to Hitler that he must choose between attacking Russia and attacking Britain. If Hitler attacked Russia, Chamberlain was prepared to tolerate Germany’s occupation of Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, and the Baltic states. Otherwise, he would use Poland to oppose Hitler. In this scenario, Stalin was forced to seek an agreement with Hitler himself. I pointed out to Mao that the Soviet Union’s policy would inevitably provoke a dialectical backlash, potentially strengthening Hitler to the point where he posed a genuine threat to the Soviet Union. The short-term effects of Soviet policy would include a severe weakening of communist forces in Britain, France, and the United States—particularly driving away liberal-minded petty-bourgeois intellectuals and plunging the working-class ranks into utter chaos. If the Communist Party opposed the war, it would face repression—for example, it had already been suppressed in France. All leftist fringe groups that actively opposed the war would also be outlawed. Such developments would strengthen reactionary and conservative forces. Methods of fascist dictatorship, masquerading as wartime mobilization needs, would rapidly proliferate. The paralysis of progressive forces would greatly diminish the influence of those resisting Chamberlain and Daladier’s appeasement and collusion with Hitler, significantly increasing the likelihood of a future anti-Soviet alliance. Therefore, it is conceivable that the current German-Soviet Pact might prompt imperialist powers to transform their conflict into a joint imperialist offensive against the Soviet Union. Mao disagreed with this view. He argued that the German-Soviet Pact provided the Soviet Union with the security it needed to guard against a German attack. He said, “Hitler is in Stalin’s pocket.” Thus, everything would be fine—unless it turned out that there was a hole in Stalin’s pocket.oA(ChinaWeeklyReview).