thumbnail of Dilemmas of power; 9; V. A. Matveyev
Transcript
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
W BJC FM in Baltimore in cooperation with the Maryland Center for Public Broadcasting and Johns Hopkins University present the annual undergraduate student project the 1971 Milton S. Eisenhower symposium an 11 part series of featured speakers presenting formal addresses followed by informal question and answer sessions. This year's topic Soviet American relations or dilemmas of power. On this program the A met via associate editor and chief political writer of Izvestia will discuss the origins of the Cold War from a Soviet point of view. Dr. Eisenhower ladies and gentleman a prominent and authoritative journalist who writes on international affairs.
Weekend TV Matt has been described as one of the best spokesman in the Soviet press. Mr. Medvedev began his long and influential career with the government organ is vested in the late 1940s. He has served that newspaper as special correspondent political observer and commentator. He was stationed in London for five years and has made a number of visits to the United States. He accompanied chairman Khrushchev to this country in 1959 and in 1961 he met with President Kennedy in 1964. He covered the United States presidential elections. A graduate of Moscow State University. He is well known for his writings on disarmament and American foreign policy. On behalf of my cochairman Kronenberg and my associate chairman Helen Bernstein's to see all Strauss and Richard Balsamo it is my pleasure to introduce Mr. Canty a bad thang.
Dr. Roizen how Mr. MN ladies and gentlemen I am greatly honored to participate in the Milton Eisenhower symposium under certain American relations. I'm quite sure that these relations will develop all the better if such exchange between us on all levels become wide and more frequent. As a member of the board of the Institute for the Soviet American relations which is a public body devoting its energies to promotion of contacts between two countries I can assure you that we would welcome visitors and guests from your country your university so that they would be able to judge for themselves how we live
how we so to say breathe. What I call PZ worries. As a matter of fact their lack of such contacts. Between our two countries constitute was one of the most harmful aspects of the Cold War a subject on which I am going to speak to this respected audience. Of course the Cold War doesn't belong altogether to the past history it's still Caro's international relations with each new passing year. It looks more and more obsolete. I wouldn't claim that my statement or lecture will contain any startling discoveries about the Cold War.
My purpose is to try to explain how we in the Soviet Union see the Cold War in it aspect. Of course this subject was and is a highly controversial line reflecting the nature of the Cold War itself. Yet this subject can now be approached in a more thoughtful and realistic manner. Because the Cold War will do all the harm. That it did to the relations between nations and governments also taught had its lessons some of the rules dangerous sources of tension had been removed or are on their way to their being removed. I mean for instance the problem of Berlin West Berlin. We may call
that West Berlin. It will cease to be a source of friction and will serve as a kind of a bridge in order to promote international understanding abroad scoop and depth of the ties reached in the relations between the Soviet Union and France. This defies to the possibilities of a wide cooperation between states expected of their political systems these days are not subject to reflect the international climate. This has been proved by the experience over the past five years and we can confidently predict that the end will be maintained and continue.
I am. I am. Well demonstrators Please sit down and keep quiet in this room at bay and will answer questions after his speech at which time you can express your views. I. Man I am the. I was. Right. I. Was.
Oh. Oh. Oh. Yeah. Oh. Yeah. He. Was much. Much. Much. Further. My experience it's the first time that I am an object of such domestication. I hope that this interruption will not spoil their creation and I hope that
we shall be able to solve all the problems that may still cause this sort of. Much. Fear. And. I was speaking about the example of the Soviet French relations developing now for the mutual benefit for both countries. I would like also to stress that while developing these relations neither France nor my country abandon any of their principles either in foreign or domestic policies they act on the basis
of these appropriate principles which in no way can say dictate what they do in their mutual relations. This is important to stress. For one of the major dogmas at the height of the cooled war was revealed that the Soviet Union and the Western powers including of course we netted states have such reconcilable. Political regimes and systems that it is practically impossible for them to act together to cooperate in matters of peacemaking and world security. At this stage the story of French relations present a unique phenomena so far as the relations between the storied Union and leading countries in the West are concerned. After reaction of music to France recent Bassianus visit to France these relations have now a new horizons especially on the level of human contacts between
individuals in North years of life. But there is no reason why. This is him close relations. Can it be established between the United States and the Soviet Union though. We should take and we should take account of the fact that in this field in the field of the Spirit American relations the legacy of the Cold War is most deeply felt. And know little Western Europe as a battleground of the Cold War is now becoming a more normal place to live. Still the Cold War is most deeply felt in this very American relations and it is for this practical reason that evolution of the roots of the Cold War is essential. But what is the cold war itself.
The term is commonly used but may mean different things. There is a view that Cold War is over now. Some others insist that it still goes on in less violent form than before. My view and I don't think very original in this my view is that the key elements of the Cold War of the conflict conflict known as the Cold War disappear with the disappearance of. American monopoly on the atom bomb. Consolidation of the new political regimes in Eastern Europe and the growth of economies of West European countries. But the disappearance of these key elements of the Cold War doesn't mean that the conflict itself came to an end at
this stage of the situation as it developed in the 50s and the 60s lein the fact that ghouls which were determining at that time the policies of the United States and Britain turned out to be unattainable. Those policies were not abandoned but were pursued with even more vigor. What was an immediate object of the actions of Washington and London the Soviet Union after the collapse of the Third Reich. I think this was expressed most explicitly by the counselor to the president who became then the secretary of state talking to President Truman in the spring of 1945. James Burns said that an American possession of the atom bomb would enable the United States to dictate peace terms that you was
not only supported by the president but emphasized jointly by the American and British government after an explosion of the first atom bomb in New Mexico at the time of the Potsdam conference. These new policies which constituted an abandonment of the spirit and some letters of the agreements reached by the Allies earlier at Tehran and Yalta work first applied to problems concerning Eastern Europe. That is the area of the most right of importance for this story to last at once. Strengthening and supporting the worst suspicions that we could have had of the intension of two biggest Western powers. Well A it is a well known fact but I canot avoid
repeating it that Hitler's Germany invaded the Soviet Union through Eastern Europe having imposed its control over most of the countries of that region after the first world war. This country is in Eastern Europe constituted what was called in the West as an attack on the borders of the Soviet Union. The Munich Agreement of 1930 it signaled to Moscow in the most unambiguous terms the readiness of the Western democracies to sacrifice all countries in Eastern Europe for the sake of the rapprochement and fire reaching deals with Hitler's Germany. We couldn't concede that the deal made at Munich at that time as a sort of a mental aberration on the part of the Western powers. But as a continuation of the policies initiated immediately after the outbreak of the source
distribution in Russia in nineteen seventies the Soviet republic was born in a sense with a cry peace on its lips. This revolution among other factors was a reaction to the hardships and the turmoil of the First World War. Needless to say it was not and couldn't have been a military challenge for the West. But faced with such a political and social challenge Western powers react militarily later on. One of the initiators of that policy admitted that he had tried to strangle an illegitimate illegitimate child in the cradle. The birth of a nuclear age brought about it deeper than ever. Division between the Western powers and the Soviet Union and led to a deadly arms race from the very beginning. The United States
government came to regard the secret of the atom bomb as their biggest asset in what Washington and London considered to be an inevitable political struggle with the Soviet Union for the postwar peace settlement. It was bad enough for the Truman administration to abruptly stop the delirious Jew to lend lease operations to the Soviet Union. On the very same day as the war came to an end in Europe. Rosewood couldn't have done anything that current at least without giving a prior notice. But it was much worse. Brandishing in effect Anathem sword before a country with whom the United States and Britain had only recently been cooperating in the fight against a common enemy. A country whose 20 million people gave their lives for the sake of the common victory.
I wonder how did the initiators of such a policy hope to lead a foundation of mutual trust and confidence so essential for the post-war settlement when their deeds symbolized the very opposite of such a trust and the confidence. And how could more school react to the fact that after this decision after Still it is in Europe and in the Pacific the production of atom bombs in the United States was even speeded up an atom bomb itself was displayed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the British scientist Professor Blackett wrote in his book in 1963 that Hiroshima had been a first major operation of the Cold War. The first one but not the last one. But may be one may ask. All this happened because the Soviet Union had to keep an uncompromising attitude and refused to yield
anything. Professor Dana Fleming in his book The Cold War and its origins published in 1961 rightly remarks that the Soviet Union and the United States right or interest did not conflict at any point on the globe. This sort of government and Stalin personally demonstrated their religionis model moral Ernest who for a continuation of the cooperation with the United States and Britain after the war. Common terror was dissolved not at the very beginning of the war when Soviet armies were in the street but at the latest at a later stage when these armies started marching towards bilin at the Terran conference. Stalin told Roosevelt that Russia would make a large market for
the United States after the war. Roosevelt agreed and said that America would require large quantities of raw materials after the war and that he thinks closed trade ties would be established between the United States and the Soviet Union on the twenty seventh of May 1945 when Harry Corkins sent by President Truman to Moscow met with Stan and he asked Stalin to tell him what worried him. Stalin said that a number of steps taken by the United States had caused concern in Moscow. There is an impression that America has cooled off towards the Soviet Union as soon as it became clear that Germany had suffered a defeat and the Americans behave as if they no longer needed the Russians. Little most important questions raised by Stalin concerned the strategy of an immediate
test of strength as it was advocated by the United States. I don't criticize the form of an abrupt termination of the Lend-Lease operations and stated that if the intention was to exert a pressure on the Soviet Union in order to compel it to make concessions. This was a serious mistake and he spoke with bitterness about American methods in dealing with the problem of Poland. He concluded by saying that much can be gained if the Russians are approached with with an open heart on a friendly basis but repressive measures expected of their form can lead only to counter measures and saw this vicious circle start measures and counter measures counter measures and counter counter measures. This was
a chain reaction of the most vicious character. But what talent said to Harry Hopkins about he is a pretentious for the near future for the coming future. It was said before an explosion of an atomic bomb in Hiroshima before a brief conversation took place at Potsdam in the cost of which Truman told Stalin about in your powerful weapon acquired by the United States. Those who grew up watching stallion at that moment on the American side later reported that they had not detected any sign of emotion on the stallion's face but they were mistaken. Hundred percent mistake this so it leaders knew what was coming. With the coming of a nuclear age
and Molotov made sharp remarks to Stalin about the circumstances in which this piece of information was conveyed to the Soviet Union and Stalin then replied by saying that from now on the appropriate work in the Soviet Union ought to be greatly accelerated. This episode is related by Marshall shock of his memoirs that religion sees between allies and the problems of postwar settlement cropped up often in the past. If the Allies were presented states with similar political systems no one could have expected a determination of the Second World War. What that the Allies would not differ on a number of issues. Sasha divergences occurred in the course of the war but they were being settled in a spirit of compromise. But that spirit was conspicuously lacking
in the months and years following the end of the Second World War. As we see the Truman administration believed in the overwhelming ability of the United States to exert an effective pressure on the Soviet Union and force it to accept in major part the American terms of the cost was set but a dictate and a compromise exclude each other. The net result was a prolonged and fierce confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States which was supported and encouraged by Britain. Peace in the rug was balancing on the brink of another and much more destructive one. The pressure on the Soviet Union was exerted on the most which had been the most serious stumbling block to an agreement between the Soviet Union and western powers on measures to stop the flow independently
preceding the outbreak of the wanted in Europe because. It. Was. Yeah and. There. Was. Was a in. The USA at. With. Was. Do. That.
If you do that. Unfortunately it lessens the war period. Learn how to learn and the cost of it was again high at the Yalta Conference Stalin made a strong plea with Roosevelt and Churchill on the question of the future of Holland. Well the Soviet Union has said this question is not only a matter of honor but of national security as well. This sort of government this is a road to make good. Those injustices that were inflicted in the past by Russians on Polish national security because vital strategic problems of the Soviet Union
are involved for centuries Poland was accorded Dosser which an enemy passed before it made an attack on Russia. Why did it happen. First of all you to the fact that Poland was weak. Polish quoted off. Foreign aggression against Russia. Can it be closed mechanically. Only with the help of the Russians. It may be sustained only through on Polish efforts. Therefore it is essential that Poland should be strong. This is why the Soviet Union is so interested in creating a strong free and independent Poland this is a matter of life and death for the Soviet Union and Festus that so the Soviet Union's interest in the problem of securing its western borders did not contradict him in any way with our desire to see in eastern and
southern Europe a strong and sovereign states and regimes capable of defending themselves. But the situation in East European countries was very unstable at that time. So long stable that the civil war broke out in Greece in similar conflicts had a reason. In other countries of this region they could have led to a major conflict involving big powers and I would ask myself what would have happened if the Soviet government yielded to pressure. Regarding the problem of Eastern Europe I think it would it would have given only encouragement to those in the United States who were thinking of. And that I'm warm as an instrument of diplomacy. The process of political stability in the East European countries
on the basis of those forces which proved to be the most active and consistent in the struggle against the Nazi aggressors was an act of historical and political justice. Though this process of remaking Eastern Europe was seen in the West as a sign of the Soviet expansion once again it is necessary to look at that problem in the light of what happened when a new weapon of mass destruction came into being. Considerations which abating the necessity I'll say God save guarding Russia's vital interests in the face of unforeseen developments that once acquired even more pressing significance for the city marshal of testifies in his memoirs that this sort of high command knew in the spring of 1945 about attempts by the British authorities in Germany to preserve
large quantities of arms and ammunition in the hands of the German detachments which were not disbanded because Winston Churchill believed that possibility of using those detachments against the Soviet Union against the SU troops at the final stage of the war in Europe. This was the most prominent sign for a future saw suspicions distrust and the more cities were becoming stronger with each passing day. In the second half of 1945 in the minds of the Soviet leaders when they were watching the behavior of the United States and British government. Having resisted more school by the end of 1940 five General Eisenhower who would with no reason to remark that before anatomy a bomb had been exploded he was able with certainty to say that we
could live in peace with Russia but he was not at all sure about it. In a new situation people are afraid and worried he said. On his return from the Soviet Union and General Eisenhower was not alone and his firm opposition to using an atom bomb against Japan he argued there was no need to drop that horrible thing. The Secretary for War Mr. Stimson expressed to President Truman in the spring and summer of 1945. His doubts about shock tactics was a view of the Soviet Union. Though he was far from being consistent in these views even such a dire card as just a group told President Truman on the 20th of June 1945 that it was not quite proper for the United States to express dissatisfaction with what the Soviet Union was doing in Eastern Europe. Taking into account American policies in
western hemisphere. But the comparison was not quite accurate because the United States has never experienced. And invasion from western from the Western Hemisphere. There have never been threatened from the Western Hemisphere while all the history of Russia has Slesinger JR put it was a history of the land invasions. Unfortunately majority of those who advised President Truman at that time were strongly in favor of the most uncompromising policy to what the voices of reason and restraint varied lot and on the contrary. West is preaching believe sit there listen to this or that American confrontation looked promising for the British government. For instance Churchill with his pleas for a union of English speaking English. This team became a dominant one
in the speeches that Winston Churchill started to make after his defeat in the summer of 1945. Naturally the idea of such a union had nothing to do with the prospect of a continued collaboration between the Soviet Union and the Western powers. So on the basis of the Cold War a massive infrastructure was beginning to emerge as sort of a huge political as big as barrack which by its sheer weight dashed all hopes for normal relations between the Soviet Union and the West. We had two armed camps were confronting each other in Europe. In 1949 the military division of Europe became a fact. This was followed by a similar process processes in Asia and the Middle East. In this atmosphere the United Nations couldn't play its proper role and only now this organisation has made steps in order to be a truly
universal one. It is being argued that the setting up of meeting in April 1949 was a notice to the events which took place in Czechoslovakia in February night in forty eight. But even earlier by the spring of 1947 when Marshall plan was announced. Well Communists had been removed from the governments in Western Europe. Truman Doctrine was promulgated empowering the United States president to act swiftly in order to bolster up military any militarily any regime under a banner of democracy and freedom and as if all this hadn't been enough. James Burns in his capacity as the secretary of state made a speech in Stuttgart in September 1946 casting doubt on the validity of the agreements fixing Poland's pranksters along the border nice alone. So the room for compromise.
Including which is very important including compromises applying to domestic situations in such countries. Like it was being narrowed to more and more. The Cold War permeated all aspects of life and Joseph McCarthy was preparing for his bid in the United States and some negative consequences of that situation were also felt in the east of Europe and in the Soviet Union. All this fat. Well no but you did. In retrospect they seem now very odd. Why for instance was it necessary to impose so-called strategic embargoes on trade when all evidence suggested that the Soviet Union was able to develop its economy irrespective of this inbox. Why was it necessary to decline contacts on the highest level level between the Soviet Union and the Western powers on the pretext
of a proper preparation for positions of strength when those positions looked like a mirage. Because the desired strength was in fact a delusion. There were many examples of the same kind. Things could have moved quite differently after the war. I wouldn't accede to leave you expressed here by Harrison Soulsby who actually said that they called what was was inevitable that it couldn't have been avoided. I don't think so. What is being said only now as a task for a future in this sphere of securing world peace by way of constructive agreements could have started much earlier. Many opportunities were missed in the last 25 years. Much of the resources and effort was wasted and still being wasted
because of the inertia of the Cold War proved to be stronger than dictates of the common sense and reason. Close cooperation between the Soviet Union and the United States and Britain in the course of the war against fascist aggressors indicated that in the face of a common danger sash crape aeration doesn't present anything unusual. But in the light of this experience it is pertinent to ask whether in peacetime it is possible or not to have the same sort of clues corporation in the face of a danger of no lesser magnitude the danger of a nuclear war so as to remove that danger. Even the most conservative minded people cannot clean now that the world is divided into a good one and an evil one. The road has nearly been searching that reverse one as a present.
This diversity is not a bad thing for each nation. Each government can contribute something specific to the task of building a secure and peaceful future for the men and in their midst of the fact that conditions of peace cannot be imposed or dictated but not to be negotiated in a spirit of compromise is being expressed in practical agreements This is a hopeful beginning. After so many years of the futile and harmful cold war so far as the Soviet Union is concerned we want this beginning to be developed into a full scale peace offensive that will break down all barriers and hide out of the Cold War. We have what we call a peace program that was adopted at the recent Congress of all Communist Party envisaging a number of a short term and long term steps to be taken in order to
make the world safer place to live in and lead to more serious problems arising from the period of the Cold War Arms Race and the division of the world including Europe into military blocks. This Soviet Union and France as a result of business is at two fronts now officially did dictate it to a policy of trying to eliminate step by step the division of Europe into military groupings. This is fixed in the principles of the Soviet French cooperation principles which were signed by a president pointed to and the general secretary of the Communist Party of the soviet union bashing. That's Europe which was a major battleground of the Cold War may become in time a major region in the
world. There is a system of collective security binding on all states will come into force replacing the presently present military setup inherited from the Cold War. It is often said in the West that doing away with Nate and respectively with the Warsaw Pact will benefit only the Soviet Union because the Soviet Union is in Europe while the United States is across the ocean. But to say this is not enough because it is important to him is each binding obligations that will air arise from the fact of these two military blocs being disbanded so that this commitments new commitments of collective security will replace the present division of
Europe into military blocs. A progress towards design movement would make real progress radical progress towards disarmament would make military blocks obsolete. But one thing must be quite clear I think. As to the desired moment I think that the servitor American cooperation in this field is not enough. Very important for for a real progress. But it is not enough. No genuine desire armament calls for efforts of the world concerned including of course such a big power as China. And now when China has restored to its lawful place in the United Nations it can make its contribution to the solution of outstanding international problems including the problem of disarming and
that Mystere of growing confidence. Among different nations. Little by little may create favorable conditions for the progress in this design and with the cold war receding in relations between the Soviet Union and our allies. On one hand and the United States and its allies on the other hand it is also more important to prevent an outbreak of a Cold War in new forms and in new areas of the globe. But then surely a most troublesome area in this respect is the Middle East. There is no valid reason why the Soviet Union and the United States should make confrontation should be confronted against each other in Vic Middle East or in any other area on the globe devoting energies to constructive objects both
countries can do much in order not only to do away with the cold war completely do away with the Cold War but help building up a new structure of world peace based on mutual trust peaceful coexistence and creative can petition I don't think this is a very unattainable ideal to be pursued. I think this is a war which is worthwhile to be considered as a practical task for years to come. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mann entertain questions. He will take questions alternately from the microphones in the aisles. Well I'm prepared to answer any questions that you have. One regional explosive problem in Europe as you mention is the presence of large numbers of both American and American allied forces with what attitude and what response would an American unilateral reduction in its force level engender. Well of course if there isn't any unilateral American reduction of forces in western Europe that will be a very compelling reason for us to respond. Moral political diplomatic please. But we are prepared to discuss
this problem. For instance now when brashness was in Paris the French government objected to. Getting down to the business of discussing this problem. But we think this is a very important one and so far as our official pronouncements are concerned we we are a good tool to go forward to move ahead. The United States is bored enough to make a first move all the better if Russia and the United States and Russia wishes to have a closer communication with the United States letting its satellites such as Czechoslovakia become a combination or a communication corridor by letting their systems relax and reach the western system
more than they have been in the past. Wouldn't this facilitate closer U.S.-Russian relationships and implied in that is why was it put down so severely given that the Russians are looking for closer U.S.-Russian relationship. Well first of all we strongly object to the satellites. We know right because we know the satellites. Into space. And if there were any satellites on earth I think now this is not the case. Still I don't quite grasp. I think what you what you are asking me whether Welsh can carry
mace and act as sort of the bridge between East and West. Well why not. While many people may serve as a sort of a bridge but I think we have well established channels and bridges for a two way traffic and it's not a problem of establishing actually communications because we have very reliable modern up to date lines of communications between our two countries. But it is really the matter to use this lies so as to make the most rapid progress and I hope that the present coming visit of your president to Moscow. I will make that breakthrough in the Soviet American relations.
The ground is being prepared little by little for new agreements between our two countries. So. If well if I care. I'm sure that leaders in Prague would would would like to see the most rapid progress in the Soviet Union in the United States because this general atmosphere of a tension between our two countries also affected adversely the states in Eastern and Western Europe. But if you have some other some other more specific questions I shall try to answer. Why is it sir that you were angry at the interruption of your speech when Russia the day if you were Jewish
you would never have been allowed even began a political speech. I beg your pardon. Will Ripley for you. Of the. Very mild My English is not so good. I didn't get I haven't got you. The question is why is it that you are angry at the interruptions of your speech when in Russia today if you were born a Jew you would never be allowed even to begin a political speech. If I was born a jewel or wasn't allowed what to do if you were born a Jew in Russia today yet you would not be permitted to make a political speech without fear of being put in a prison camp. Correct. There are 49 Jews who have been put in concentration camps because of political speeches. Well we have. All sorts of political speeches
and formal and informal meetings. And really you see for us this I mean no distinction. A man who speaks who comes to the rostrum is a years back or a Jew or a Russian because why why. First of all I really I was not angry being interrupted I was puzzled. For those who are interested in the Jewish immigration to Israel I think should first of all put pressure on Tel Aviv because it is up to Tel Aviv to alleviate the situation in Middle East and in the Middle East. This Soviet Union was the Soviet government did well for Israel for the recognition of Israel
when the question was debated in the United Nations and we would gladly do everything in order to preserve and insure Israel as an independent and sovereign state insure its security. But Israel is not alone in the Middle East. And if we want a real solution we should look for compromises and not for pressure because repressive measures cause countermeasures. And I don't think that pushing this sort of pressure on the Soviet Union would help those few would you rather few Jews who would like to emigrate to Israel. I am quite sure I cannot speak for other people in the Soviet Union but
quite sure that 90 percent more nor more than 90 percent of the Jews in the Soviet Union would like to remain where they are because it is their country their motherland. Anti-Semitism is bent and not on paper but in effect in the story. I may say more. If we wanted we could have started campaigning against some expressions of trying to semitism in the United States because here though I didn't spend much time here in United States and now here the sixth time. But here I came across a cross cases of anti-Semitism. The most blatant cases. So let's really let's be balanced in our
views and in our position. We have problems but let's try to solve those problems not by shout but by real deeds. Thank you. Sir your colleagues have described American action in Indochina as imperialistic. I just be interested to know how it is. How do your journalists like yourself describe Soviet action in Hungary in Czechoslovakia even in 1945. We had compelling reasons did exist. The pressure exerted on us regarding Eastern Europe in the middle of the 50s and later on when Europe became a sort of it and now armed camp or
two armed camps in Europe emerged these compelling reasons became even much stronger. These were not easy decisions to make. And in the case of Chickasaw work here there was no bloodshed. There was a bloodshed in Hungary but I think that in both cases much worse things have been had been much more bloodshed had been averted. Civil wars had been alerted because the Soviet Union acted. I only hope that this this is not to justify but to explain and I hope that with the coming into force of thought of
security area instruments in Europe when there will be formal initiation of the use of force or the threat of the use of force and when Europe changed the continent changed then nothing of that sort would again be repeated. For the past hour the associate editor and chief political writer of Izvestia was discussing the origins of the Cold War from a Soviet point of view on the next program. GA our boss director of the Institute of the U.S.A. Academy of Sciences in the Soviet Union will discuss the prospects for detente a hopeful view.
Please note: This content is only available at GBH and the Library of Congress, either due to copyright restrictions or because this content has not yet been reviewed for copyright or privacy issues. For information about on location research, click here.
Series
Dilemmas of power
Episode Number
9
Episode
V. A. Matveyev
Producing Organization
Johns Hopkins University
WBJC (Radio station : Baltimore, Md.)
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/500-0g3h223t
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/500-0g3h223t).
Description
Series Description
This series presents a variety of lectures on Soviet-American relations. The lectures are followed by informal question and answer sessions.
Topics
Politics and Government
Media type
Sound
Duration
00:58:55
Credits
Composer: Schwartz, Donald
Producing Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Producing Organization: WBJC (Radio station : Baltimore, Md.)
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 5493 (University of Maryland)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 00:58:30
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “Dilemmas of power; 9; V. A. Matveyev,” University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed February 7, 2023, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-0g3h223t.
MLA: “Dilemmas of power; 9; V. A. Matveyev.” University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. February 7, 2023. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-0g3h223t>.
APA: Dilemmas of power; 9; V. A. Matveyev. Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-0g3h223t