Comrades, I will say a few words.

Please allow me to speak extemporaneously.

Because I suffered from cerebral anemia a few years ago, and although I have been better in the last year or two, it is still somewhat inconvenient for me to stand and speak.

I want to discuss two issues: the situation and unity.

I now feel that the international situation has reached a new turning point.

There are two winds in the world today: the East Wind and the West Wind.

There is a Chinese idiom: either the East Wind prevails over the West Wind, or the West Wind prevails over the East Wind.

I believe the characteristic of the current situation is that the East Wind prevails over the West Wind, which means that the forces of socialism have gained an overwhelming advantage over the forces of imperialism.

The October Revolution forty years ago was a turning point in the entire history of mankind. Why is there another turning point now?

There still is.

When fighting Hitler [2], for a period of one or two years, Hitler gained the upper hand.

At that time, Hitler not only occupied most of Europe but also invaded the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union gave up a large piece of land, which shows that Hitler temporarily gained the upper hand.

The Battle of Stalingrad [3] became a turning point; from then on, Hitler went downhill, and the Soviet Union swept through everything until it reached Berlin.

Wasn't that a turning point?

In my opinion, the Battle of Stalingrad was the turning point of the entire Second World War.

Last year, and in recent years, the Western world was very rampant, taking advantage of some problems in our camp, especially the Hungarian incident [4], to blacken our camp's face, and many dark clouds flew over our sky.

But the Hungarian counter-revolution was suppressed.

In the Suez Canal incident [5], the Soviet Union's warning also played a role in stopping the war of aggression.

The purpose of the West blackening our face, in my opinion, was mainly to "rectify" the Communist Parties of various countries.

In this regard, they also achieved part of their goal.

For example, the American Fast [6], a shameful traitor to communism, left the Party.

Some people also left other Communist Parties.

Imperialism was greatly pleased by this.

I think we should also be pleased.

What's wrong with traitors leaving?

This year, 1957, the situation is vastly different.

Our sky is bright, and the Western sky is full of dark clouds.

We are very optimistic, while they are in a state of anxiety.

The two satellites launched [7] made them sleepless.

A meeting of over sixty Communist Parties in Moscow was unprecedented, never before on such a large scale.

However, among the countries of the socialist camp, among the Communist Parties of various countries, and especially among the peoples of various countries, there are still quite a few people who always believe that the United States is formidable.

Look, they still have so much steel, so many airplanes and cannons.

We have less than them.

Countless newspapers and radio stations in Western countries broadcast daily, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, etc., exaggerate things to the point of being miraculous, thus creating a false impression that deceives a considerable number of people.

We must expose this deception.

I have ten pieces of evidence to illustrate this question: are they capable or are we capable? Is it the East Wind prevailing over the West Wind, or the West Wind prevailing over the East Wind?

First, when fighting Hitler, how much steel did Roosevelt [8] and Churchill [9] have in their hands?

About 70 million tons.

But they couldn't defeat Hitler; they had no solution.

They had to find a way, so they adopted the method of travel, and went all the way to Yalta [10] to ask for Soviet help.

At that time, how much steel did Stalin have?

Before the war, he had 18 million tons.

Because many places were lost during the war, Comrade Khrushchev [11] told me that steel production was cut in half, leaving 9 million tons.

People with 70 million tons of steel came to ask for help from people with 9 million tons of steel.

What were the conditions?

The area east of the Elbe River was designated as the Red Army's offensive zone, meaning they painfully decided to let this large area separate from their system, allowing this large area to potentially transform into a socialist system.

This is very convincing, showing that the amount of material strength does not entirely determine the problem; people are primary, and the system is primary.

In Yalta, they also discussed fighting Japan.

Again, the Americans couldn't defeat Japan and had to ask for communist help.

Manchuria [12] in China, and part of Korea, were designated as the Red Army's attack zone, and it was decided to make Japan return half of Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands.

This was also a painful concession!

In order to defeat their companion—Japanese imperialism.

Second, the Chinese Revolution.

In early 1949, when the Kuomintang was being beaten to death by us, they cried out to Truman [13] for help, saying: American sir, please send some troops!

Truman said: I cannot send a single soldier!

So the Kuomintang said again: Can you say a few words? Say that if the Communist Party reaches the area south of the Yangtze River, the United States cannot stand idly by.

Truman said: This is not possible, it cannot be said, the Communist Party is very powerful.

So Chiang Kai-shek had no choice but to flee.

He is now in Taiwan.

Third, the Korean War.

At the beginning, an American division had 800 cannons, while three divisions of the Chinese People's Volunteers only had over 50 cannons.

But once we started fighting, it was like herding ducks; in a few weeks, we drove the Americans hundreds of kilometers, from the Yalu River to south of the 38th Parallel [14].

Later, the Americans concentrated their forces for a counterattack, and we and Comrade Kim Il Sung [15] retreated to the 38th Parallel to hold our ground and build fortifications.

The Korean War lasted almost three years, as discussed with Comrade Kim Il Sung.

American planes were like wasps; we had no planes on the front line.

Both sides agreed to talk peace.

At what location?

They said on a Danish ship; we said in Kaesong, in our territory.

They said: Okay.

Because the meeting place was in our territory, they had to come with white flags every day for the meeting and return with white flags after the meeting.

Later, they felt embarrassed—waving white flags every day.

They suggested changing the location to Panmunjom, a place in the middle of the two sides' front lines.

We said that was also acceptable.

But they talked for about a year, and the Americans were always unwilling to sign, dragging it out.

Finally, in 1953, we broke through their 21-kilometer defense line on the 38th Parallel, and the Americans were scared and immediately signed.

Even the powerful Americans with so much steel had to do this.

This war was actually fought by three countries: Korea, China, and the Soviet Union, with the Soviet Union providing weapons.

But on the enemy side, there were sixteen countries [16].

Fourth, the Vietnam War.

The French were beaten by Ho Chi Minh [17] to the point of crying and wetting themselves.

Someone can testify, Comrade Ho Chi Minh is present.

The French didn't want to continue, but the Americans insisted because they had a lot of steel.

But the Americans only provided weapons, maintaining tension, and did not send troops.

Thus, there was the Geneva Conference [18], which ceded most of Vietnam to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

Fifth, the Suez Canal incident.

Two imperialist powers attacked, fought for a few days, and then the Soviets said a few words, and they retreated.

Of course, there was a second factor, which was the worldwide opposition to the Anglo-French aggression.

The sixth event was Syria.

The United States had made plans to attack, and again the Soviets said a few words, and even appointed a general named Rokossovsky.

After these two things, they said it was difficult to fight.

This matter is not over yet; we must remain vigilant, as there may still be trouble in the future.

But for now, there has been no fighting.

Seventh, the Soviet Union launched two satellites.

How much steel does the country that launched satellites have?

51 million tons.

Didn't they say America was very powerful?

Why haven't you even launched a yam yet?

You have 100 million tons of steel, you brag so much, and you made the Vanguard program [19].

The Vanguard program needs to be renamed; it should be called the Backward program.

From these seven events, I think we can draw a conclusion: the Western world has been left behind by us.

Left behind by a little or by a lot?

As I say—perhaps I am a bit adventurous—I say, forever left behind.

Before the Soviet Union launched its artificial satellite, socialist countries already held an overwhelming advantage over imperialist countries in terms of popular support and population; and after the Soviet Union launched its artificial satellite, they also gained an overwhelming advantage in the most important scientific and technological sectors.

People say that the United States will catch up, and it will also launch satellites.

This is true.

Comrade Khrushchev's report also stated that the United States would launch satellites.

But they are now debating whether it will take one, two, or five years to catch up with the Soviet Union.

I don't care if it's one, two, or five years, you are always left behind.

Our Soviet comrades, Comrade Khrushchev, probably only sleep at night, not during the day.

All Soviets won't sleep day and night, for one, two, or five years, will they?

You catch up with the Soviet Union in one, two, or five years, but the Soviet Union will have advanced further.

Comrades, let me talk about our country's affairs.

Our country has 5.2 million tons of steel this year; in another five years, it can have 10 to 15 million tons of steel; in another five years, it can have 20 to 25 million tons of steel; in another five years, it can have 35 to 40 million tons of steel.

Of course, perhaps I am exaggerating here, and when the international conference meets again in the future, you might criticize me for being subjective.

But I have considerable basis.

We have many Soviet experts helping us.

The Chinese people want to work hard.

China is a big country politically and demographically, but economically it is still a small country.

They want to work hard, they are very enthusiastic about their work, to turn China into a truly great country.

Comrade Khrushchev told us that in 15 years, the Soviet Union can surpass the United States.

I can also say that in 15 years, we may catch up with or surpass Britain.

Because I have talked with Comrades Pollitt and Gollan [20] twice, and I asked about their country's situation; they said that Britain currently produces 20 million tons of steel annually, and in another 15 years, it might climb to 30 million tons of steel annually.

As for China, in another 15 years, it might be 40 million tons; wouldn't that surpass Britain?

So, in 15 years, within our camp, the Soviet Union will surpass the United States, and China will surpass Britain.

Ultimately, we must strive for 15 years of peace.

By then, we will be invincible in the world; no one will dare to fight us, and the world can achieve lasting peace.

Now we must also consider a situation where madmen who want to start a war might drop atomic and hydrogen bombs everywhere.

If they drop them, we will drop them too, and it will be a mess, and people will be lost.

The problem must be considered from the worst possible scenario.

Our Party's Political Bureau has held several meetings to discuss this issue.

If we were to fight now, China only has hand grenades, no atomic bombs, but the Soviet Union has them.

We must imagine how many people would die if a war broke out.

Of the world's 2.7 billion people, perhaps one-third would be lost; even more, perhaps half.

It's not that we want to fight; it's that they want to fight, and if they fight, they will drop atomic and hydrogen bombs.

I debated this issue with a foreign politician. He believed that if an atomic war were fought, all humans would die out.

I say, to put it in the extreme, if half the people die, there is still half left. Imperialism will be defeated, the whole world will become socialist, and in a few more years, there will be another 2.7 billion people, certainly more.

Our China has not yet been built well, and we hope for peace.

But if the imperialists insist on fighting, we will have no choice but to steel ourselves and build after the war.

If you fear war every day, what can you do when war comes?

First, I said that the East Wind prevails over the West Wind, and war will not break out. Now, I have made these supplementary explanations regarding the situation if war does occur, thus accounting for both possibilities.

I will present ten pieces of evidence. I have just discussed seven, and now I will discuss three more.

The eighth piece is Britain withdrawing from a large area of Asia and Africa.

The ninth piece is the Netherlands withdrawing from Indonesia.

The tenth piece is France withdrawing from Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, and Tunisia, and being helpless in Algeria.

Are backward countries stronger, or are advanced countries stronger?

Is India stronger, or is Britain stronger?

Is Indonesia stronger, or is the Netherlands stronger?

Is Algeria stronger, or is France stronger?

I think all imperialist countries are like the sun at six in the evening, while we are like the sun at six in the morning.

And so, the turning point has arrived.

That is to say, Western countries have been left behind, and we have gained a great upper hand.

It certainly won't be the West Wind prevailing over the East Wind, because the West Wind is so weak.

It must be the East Wind prevailing over the West Wind, because we are strong.

The problem cannot be decided by the quantity of steel, but primarily by the alignment of people's hearts.

This has always been the case throughout history.

Throughout history, the weak have always defeated the strong, and those without guns have defeated those fully armed.

The Bolsheviks [21] once had not a single gun.

Soviet comrades told me that during the February Revolution [22], there were only 40,000 party members; during the October Revolution, there were only 240,000 party members.

The first paragraph on the first page of the book "A Short Course on the History of the CPSU (B)" describes a dialectic: from small groups to the whole country.

It started with scattered small groups of dozens of people, and later became the leaders of the entire country.

Soviet comrades, when you revise the "History of the CPSU," I hope you do not change these few sentences.

Our China is also like this. It started with scattered small groups of dozens of communists, and now it also leads the entire country, a large party leading 640 million people.

Dozens of communist groups have now grown into 12 million party members.

I particularly want to exchange views with comrades from communist parties in capitalist countries, because they are currently in difficulties. Some parties are very small, and some parties have large numbers of members leaving.

I say this is not surprising, and perhaps it is a good thing.

Our path is tortuous, ascending in a spiral.

I also want to talk about the paper tiger issue.

In 1946, when Chiang Kai-shek began to attack us, many of our comrades and the people nationwide were very worried: could the war be won?

I myself was also worried about this.

But we had one conviction.

At that time, an American journalist came to Yan'an, named Anna Louise Strong.

This person was the female writer who lived in the Soviet Union for twenty or thirty years, was later expelled by Stalin, and then rehabilitated by Comrade Khrushchev.

When I talked with her, I discussed many issues: Chiang Kai-shek, Hitler, Japan, the United States, the atomic bomb, and so on.

I said that all so-called powerful reactionaries are nothing but paper tigers, because they are divorced from the people.

Look, wasn't Hitler a paper tiger?

Wasn't Hitler overthrown?

I also talked about the Tsar being a paper tiger, the Chinese emperor being a paper tiger, Japanese imperialism being a paper tiger. Look, they all fell.

U.S. imperialism has not fallen, and it still has atomic bombs, but I think it will also fall, and it is also a paper tiger.

Chiang Kai-shek was very powerful, with over four million regular troops.

At that time, we were in Yan'an.

How many people were there in Yan'an?

There were seven thousand people.

How many troops did we have?

We had 900,000 guerrillas, all divided by Chiang Kai-shek into dozens of base areas.

But we said that Chiang Kai-shek was nothing but a paper tiger, and we would definitely defeat him.

In order to fight against the enemy, we formed a concept over a long period of time, which is: strategically, we must despise all enemies; tactically, we must take all enemies seriously.

That is to say, overall, we must despise them, but on each specific issue, we must take them seriously.

If we do not despise the enemy overall, we will commit opportunist errors.

Marx and Engels were only two people, but at that time they said that capitalism worldwide would be overthrown.

However, on specific issues, on the issue of each individual enemy, if we do not take them seriously, we will commit adventurist errors.

Wars can only be fought one battle at a time, and enemies can only be eliminated one part at a time.

Factories can only be built one by one, and farmers can only plow fields one plot at a time.

The same goes for eating.

Strategically, we despise eating: we can eat this meal.

But when eating specifically, it is done bite by bite; you cannot swallow a whole banquet in one gulp.

This is called solving problems individually, and in military books, it is called defeating them one by one.

The first issue is finished.

Now, a few words on the second issue, the issue of unity.

I am very happy and very fortunate that our meeting has been very united.

This conference reflects the rising vigor of the proletariat and people worldwide, and the situation where the East Wind prevails over the West Wind.

We have many shortcomings and mistakes, but our achievements are primary and show results year after year.

This is reflected in the vigor of our conference of over sixty communist parties, and the unanimous recognition that there must be a head, and this head is the Soviet Union, the Central Committee of the CPSU.

There is a Chinese saying, "A snake without a head cannot move."

Look, each of us has a head.

The party in each country also has a head, both a collective head and an individual head.

The Central Committee and the Political Bureau are the collective, and the First Secretary is the individual. Both are needed, otherwise it is anarchism.

I was pleased with Comrade Gomulka's [23] speech yesterday. He said that recognizing the Soviet Union as the head is a truth, not artificial, but naturally formed historically.

However, some people in his country still have emotional issues and temporarily do not want to say this, preferring to express it in another form, for example, by referring to the first and most powerful socialist country.

Such a contradiction exists in his country, where advanced elements are not yet reconciled with a considerable number of others.

Therefore, they still need to do work.

I believe Comrade Gomulka is a good person.

Comrade Khrushchev has twice told me that Comrade Gomulka can be trusted.

I hope that Poland, the Soviet Union, China, and other countries will unite completely and gradually improve our relations.

I am also pleased that the Yugoslav comrades are prepared to sign the second declaration [24].

What does their signing of the peace declaration of over sixty parties signify?

It signifies unity.

They did not sign the declaration of the twelve countries [25], leaving one country missing from the thirteen.

They said they had difficulties, and we thought that was acceptable; we cannot impose on others. If Yugoslavia does not want to sign, then let them not sign.

In a few years, I think they will be able to sign another declaration.

On the issue of unity, I want to talk a little about method.

I say that for comrades, no matter who they are, as long as they are not hostile elements or saboteurs, we must adopt an attitude of unity.

We should adopt a dialectical method towards them, not a metaphysical method.

What is the dialectical method?

It means analyzing everything, acknowledging that people always make mistakes, and not negating everything about a person just because they made a mistake.

Lenin once said that there is no one in the world who does not make mistakes [26].

I myself have made many mistakes, and these mistakes have been very beneficial to me; they have educated me.

Everyone needs support.

Even a good hero needs three helpers, and a fence needs three stakes.

This is a Chinese idiom.

There is another Chinese idiom: "Though the lotus is beautiful, it still needs green leaves to support it."

Comrade Khrushchev, though you are a beautiful lotus, you also need green leaves to support you.

My lotus, Mao Zedong, is not beautiful, and needs green leaves even more to support it.

We also have a Chinese idiom: "Three humble cobblers together make a Zhuge Liang."

This aligns with Comrade Khrushchev's slogan—collective leadership.

A single Zhuge Liang is always incomplete, always flawed.

Look at our twelve-country declaration; there have been first, second, third, and fourth drafts, and textual revisions are still not finished.

I think the idea of claiming to be omniscient and omnipotent, like God, is inappropriate.

Therefore, what attitude should we adopt towards comrades who make mistakes?

We should analyze, adopt a dialectical method, and not a metaphysical method.

Our party once fell into metaphysics—dogmatism, completely destroying anyone we disliked.

Later, we criticized dogmatism and gradually learned a little more dialectics.

The basic view of dialectics is the unity of opposites.

Acknowledging this view, what should we do with comrades who make mistakes?

First, we must struggle against comrades who make mistakes, thoroughly eradicating their erroneous ideas; second, we must also help them.

First, struggle; second, help.

Help them correct their mistakes out of good intentions, so that they have a way out.

It is different for another type of person.

For people like Trotsky [27], and like Chen Duxiu, Zhang Guotao, and Gao Gang [28] in China, we cannot adopt a helpful attitude towards them because they are beyond redemption.

And people like Hitler, Chiang Kai-shek, and the Tsar are also beyond redemption; they can only be overthrown, because for us, they are absolutely mutually exclusive.

In this sense, they have no duality, only singularity.

The same is true for the imperialist system and the capitalist system in the end; they will ultimately be replaced by the socialist system.

Ideology is also the same: materialism must replace idealism, and atheism must replace theism.

This is spoken in terms of strategic goals.

At the tactical stage, it is different; there are compromises.

Didn't we compromise with the Americans on the 38th parallel in Korea?

Didn't we compromise with the French in Vietnam?

At each tactical stage, one must be good at struggle and also good at compromise.

Now back to comrade relations.

I propose that if there are differences among comrades, negotiations should be held.

Some people seem to think that once one joins the Communist Party, everyone is a saint, there are no differences, no misunderstandings, no need for analysis—that is, a monolithic block, perfectly uniform, and thus no need for negotiations.

It seems that once one joins the Communist Party, one must be 100% Marxist.

In fact, there are various kinds of Marxists: 100% Marxists, 90% Marxists, 80% Marxists, 70% Marxists, 60% Marxists, 50% Marxists, and some people are only 10% or 20% Marxist.

Can we talk in a small room, two people or a few people?

Can we start from unity and negotiate in a spirit of helpfulness?

This is certainly not a negotiation with imperialism (we will also negotiate with imperialism), but an internal negotiation within communism.

Let me give an example.

Are we having a negotiation among the twelve countries this time?

Are the sixty-odd parties having a negotiation?

In reality, we are having a negotiation.

That is to say, without harming the principles of Marxism-Leninism, we accept some acceptable opinions from others and abandon some of our own dispensable opinions.

In this way, we have two hands when dealing with comrades who have made mistakes: one hand to struggle against them, and the other hand to talk about unity with them.

The purpose of struggle is to uphold Marxist principles; this is called principledness, and it is one hand.

The other hand talks about unity, and the purpose of unity is to give them a way out, to talk about compromise with them; this is called flexibility.

The unity of principledness and flexibility is a principle of Marxism-Leninism; this is a unity of opposites.

Any world, especially class society, is full of contradictions.

Some people say that contradictions can be "found" in socialist society; I think this statement is incorrect.

It's not about finding or not finding contradictions, but about being full of contradictions.

There is no place where contradictions do not exist, and no person who cannot be analyzed.

If one admits that a person cannot be analyzed, that is metaphysics.

Look, within an atom, there is a unity full of contradictions.

There is a unity of two opposites: the atomic nucleus and electrons.

Within the atomic nucleus, there is again a unity of opposites: protons and neutrons.

Within protons, there are protons and antiprotons; within neutrons, there are neutrons and antineutrons.

In short, the unity of opposites is omnipresent.

The concept of the unity of opposites, of dialectics, needs to be widely publicized.

I say that dialectics should move from the circle of philosophers to the broad masses of the people.

I suggest that this issue should be discussed at Politburo meetings and plenary sessions of the Central Committees of various parties, and at local committees at all levels of the party.

In fact, our branch secretaries understand dialectics; when they prepare to give a report at a branch meeting, they often write two points in a small notebook: the first point is strengths, and the second point is weaknesses.

Dividing into two is a universal phenomenon; this is dialectics.

Stalin led the Soviet party in doing great work; his achievements are primary, and his shortcomings and mistakes are secondary.

But for a long time, he developed metaphysics and harmed dialectics.

The cult of personality is metaphysics; no one can criticize him.

I think the forty years of the Soviet Union have been a dialectical process.

Lenin's dialectics, Stalin's many metaphysical views, these views put into action, reaching their extreme, are bound to go to their opposite, and then another dialectics will emerge.

I am very pleased that Comrade Khrushchev spoke about the existence of contradictions in socialist society at the 40th anniversary of the October Revolution.

I am very pleased that many articles have appeared in Soviet philosophical circles discussing the internal contradictions of socialist society.

Some articles also discussed the contradictions between socialism and capitalism.

These are two types of contradictions of different natures.

My speech ends here.

Finally, one more sentence: I approve of the two declarations.

Printed according to the documents of the Second Session of the Eighth National Congress of the Communist Party of China.

Note [1] Individual deletions were made when this speech was selected for this book.

[2] Hitler, see note [3] on page 75 of this volume.

[3] Refers to the Battle of Stalingrad. In the summer of 1942, after the German army's full-scale offensive against the Soviet Union failed, it turned to focus its offensive on the southern flank of the Soviet-German front. On July 17, the German army began a fierce assault on Stalingrad, attempting to capture the city, cut off the Volga River, seize the Caucasus oil fields to the south, and attack Moscow to the north. The Soviet army, with the strength of five front armies and the broad masses of the people, fought arduously, eliminating a large number of enemies in tenacious defensive battles. On November 19, the Soviet army launched a counteroffensive, and on November 23, it encircled 330,000 German troops. On February 2 of the following year, the entire enemy force was annihilated. In this battle, the German army lost 1.5 million troops, and the Soviet army gained strategic initiative, marking a new turning point in the Soviet-German War and World War II.

[4] The Hungarian incident refers to the anti-government political events that occurred in Hungary from October to November 1956.

[5] The Suez Canal incident, see note [3] on page 201 of this volume.

[6] Fast, born in 1914, American writer. Joined the Communist Party of the United States in 1942. Wrote some works exposing the darkness of capitalist society and reflecting revolutionary movements in American history, and served as a member of the World Peace Council. After the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Hungarian incident, he announced his withdrawal from the Communist Party of the United States.

[7] Refers to the successful launch of two artificial earth satellites by the Soviet Union on October 4 and November 3, 1957.

[8] Roosevelt, served as President of the United States from 1933 to 1945.

[9] Churchill, served as Prime Minister of the British wartime coalition cabinet from 1940 to 1945.

[10] Yalta, on the Crimean Peninsula in the former Soviet Union. From February 4 to 11, 1945, the heads of state of the Soviet Union, the United States, and Britain held a meeting here and signed the "Yalta Agreement." See note [14] on page 129 of this volume.

[11] Khrushchev, then First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

[12] Manchuria, here refers to the Northeast region of China.

[13] Truman (1884-1972), American Democrat. Served as President of the United States from 1945 to 1953.

[14] The 38th Parallel, see note [3] on page 66 of this volume.

[15] Kim Il Sung (1912-1994), then Chairman of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea and Premier of the Cabinet of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. During the Korean War, he served as Chairman of the Central Military Commission of the Workers' Party of Korea and Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army.

[16] During the Korean War, the United States, under the name of the "United Nations Forces," organized armies from sixteen countries, including Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Union of South Africa, Ethiopia, Turkey, Greece, the Philippines, Thailand, and Colombia, along with the United States, to conduct armed intervention against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

[17] Ho Chi Minh (1890-1969), then Chairman of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Vietnam and President of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

[18] The Geneva Conference refers to the international conference held in Geneva, Switzerland, from April 26 to July 21, 1954, to discuss the peaceful settlement of the Korean question and the restoration of peace in Indochina. The "Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities in Vietnam" reached at this conference stipulated that French troops would be concentrated south of the 17th parallel. In this way, more than half of Vietnam was allocated to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

[19] Project Vanguard was the artificial earth satellite launch program formulated by the United States at that time. The United States attempted to be at the forefront of space technology through this program.

[20] Pollitt, then Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Communist Party of Great Britain. Gollan (1911-1977), then General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Great Britain.

[21] Bolshevik, refers to the Bolshevik Party, the predecessor of the original Communist Party of the Soviet Union, formally established in 1912.

[22] The February Revolution refers to the bourgeois democratic revolution that occurred in Russia in March (February in the Russian calendar) 1917, which overthrew the tsarist autocracy.

[23] Gomułka (1905-1982), then First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party.

[24] Refers to the "Peace Declaration" adopted by the Conference of Representatives of Communist and Workers' Parties of 64 Countries held in Moscow from November 16 to 19, 1957.

[25] Refers to the "Declaration of the Conference of Representatives of Communist and Workers' Parties of Socialist Countries" (commonly known as the "Moscow Declaration") adopted by the Conference of Representatives of Communist and Workers' Parties of Socialist Countries held in Moscow from November 14 to 16, 1957. Delegations from the ruling Communist and Workers' Parties of twelve countries, including Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, the German Democratic Republic, Romania, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Mongolia, Korea, and China, participated in this conference.

[26] See Lenin's "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder. The original text is: "There have not been and cannot be people who do not make mistakes." (Selected Works of Lenin, Vol. 4, People's Publishing House, 1995 edition, p. 146)

[27] Trotsky (1879-1940), during the October Revolution, served as a member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks) and Chairman of the Petrograd Soviet. After the victory of the October Revolution, he served as People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, People's Commissar for Army and Navy Affairs, Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council, and a member of the Executive Committee of the Comintern. In October 1926, the plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) decided to remove him from his position as a member of the Central Political Bureau. In January 1927, the Executive Committee of the Comintern decided to remove him from his position as an executive member. In November of the same year, he was expelled from the party. In January 1929, he was expelled from the Soviet Union. In August 1940, he was assassinated in Mexico.

[28] Chen Duxiu, see note [3] on page 56 of this volume. Zhang Guotao, see note [12] on page 58 of this volume. Gao Gang, see note [7] on page 45 of this volume.