FREEDOM CREEPS INTO THE RUSSIAN PRESS

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24959, 21 August 1946, Page 6

FREEDOM CREEPS INTO THE RUSSIAN PRESS

OPINION IN US.S.R

[By a Special Correspondent of the "Sydney Morning Herald" 1b (Published by Arrangement.)

For the first time for 10 years questions of fundamental principle are being openly disputed in the Soviet press. In the violent controversy which is going on, apparently with the permission of the authorities, mmiy wellestablished myths of Soviet dogma are being overthrown. ~ .. This is a direct result of the war. Almost one-sixth of the population of Soviet Russia has been in the Rea Army outside the frontiers of the Union during the last five years. ■ Soviet citizens have seen the west and have been able to make sons. During their long periods of waiting in the trenches they did not talk only about trivialities, and there is little doubt that their conversations led sometimes to a general revision of Va They read the official proclamations and news stories and saw the w ar propaganda plays, and they compared these pictures with the reality. Now when Russian writers who have remained true to the war-time idiom depict a loutish and ridiculous enemy, and say nothing about all the defeats of the Red Army, articles appear in the literary reviews by important Soviet writers, who vigorously attack this t P he ra b S a e t°t}e g a y g ainst cliches is literary* S a ty4"al a&effltate propaganda. Report on Deserters The first sensation of the kind was caused by the memoirs of a. veteran oi the Partisan warfare, Major-General Wersigora, called “People With a Clear Conscience.” The first edition was exhausted in a few days. The major-general, a former him producer, describes the first period or the Soviet defeats. Prosaically.he tells of the growth of the first Partisan detachments among the Soviet troops surrounded by the Germans. He does not discount the existence of Russian troops on the enemy side. He mentions not only the Wlasov units, but also the detachments of the Don, the Kouban, and the Cossack groups which passed over to the enemy. He describes the capture by the Partisans of these Russians fighting on the enemy side. He tries to under stand their psychology, noting, Among tnese troops there were people with a strong hatred for the Soviet regime. We had to save those who had strayed and work on them with patience. This is almost the first time that any public reference to these deserters has been permitted and the manner of treating the subject shows a new kind of courage. „ x None the less these first discussions are careful to observe the usual Soviet ritual, and while attacking the falsification of history, interlard their sentences with quotations from Stalin.

Realism Comes In the May number of the review “October,” official organ of the Association of Soviet Authors, the chief editor, Panferov, a well-known man of letters, takes issue with the writers and critics who simplify the history of this war. Panferov writes: “Once, when we were on the banks of the Elbe, some writers and generals were sitting at our table. I asked the generals, ‘You have brought your army from the city of Orel to the Elbe without retreating once. Can you explain what forces made your army advance?’ The generals replied, ‘We, ourselves, have not had time to think about it. It is a question we must try to answer. This is very different from the old formula which was once obligatory: “The genius of our leaders has led us to victory.” The generals are now looking for deeper causes. The author of the article goes even further and attacks those who pretend that war consists entirely of victories and that “retreat was prepared in advance.” “Was it prepared in advance then,’ he asks, “when the fate of our country hung from a thread? Comrade Stalin and his colleagues have told us.” The author suggests to these writers that now at least they might begin to tell the truth 'by describing the terrible moments which were passed behind the front, and which* had to be hushed up during the war.

“Everything,” he says’ -sepm have happened in our country iL. 10 quietly, in a holiday spirit Tn YT* from these writers, even th? men in hospital live in a eternal gaiety, singing and olayS? J accordion.” /’’“Il Yet this optimistic totie of rumou cation was used even before th**’ So the attack is not only on thn n , er 01 TL riti j g daring the also on the ideology of optima *» pressed by Stalin to a party •sthJ? in the well-known phrase: ’Tifl V become lighter and gayer” • For years the whole press wtm. * this mannner. It was the tin? 5 literature. Scepticism and were banned. But Panferov now deprecates ov.» simplification. In speaking of the <£’ mans he says: "Fritz, a sep»£' empty-headed coward, knows nZ of military science, has no feel™ In this case how did he get to Stiff grad? Where is the heroism ot tu Red Army in having rid us «t Jr dolts? "And the Prussians? Are th. Pm. sian generals and majors good S’, nothing too? . . . We hate the Fasevf. as much as anybody, but why ffj, estimate the strength of their uZ' their ability to wage war, tenacity in the struggle, and S; knowledge of defence and attack a dolt could not even temporarily hi,, conquered all Europe. We must fta learn to know the force and psyoholwi of their army.” Panferov is certainly not expresam a mere personal opinion. He worta the front, was tn the trenches lbw among the soldiers, also with th, n. erals. He steeped himself in ft. atmosphere of the front and rtilw that those who write in routine m seldom visited it. This article has been severely oft. cised by the central party organ ft, daily "Pravda.” But criticism goo m further. The literary monthly was n« suspended, it did not share the fat, d another periodical, the monthly “ji,. toric Journal,” which had to ba n. named "Problems of History" on g. count of ideological “deviations.” Now it seems that repressive tansures are no longer taken againii "deviations.” Rather there is an it tempt to define a "deviation” u thereby to arrive at a revision g values which have been sacrosanct fet fifteen years. There is thus a gentle picking st the foundation of the dictatorship ft, idea of the infallible leader. Thm is an attack on optimism in literate and a demand for the abandonmw of cliches and stereotyped phrsm. Paper’s Confession

This struggle sometimes takes ess ous forms. The daily newwi “Trud,” organ of the Central Coofal of the Workers’ Federation, retfllfr celebrated its 25th anniversary, . Not long after, thepapw published an article headed “The bureaucrats style and excessive formalism of I newspaper.” The newspaper referral to was "Trud” itself. , The publication of the article, vkH had previously appeared in a new w view, "Culture and Life,” had tte Ip pearance of a public MgMM “Trud” is accused of using sterwpsl phrases and of slurring over faults and omissions. “The newspaper.” it sajy, ah public opinion to be critical, but Itwl does not know how to criticise. It criticism is timid, impersonal pi vague. All the pages of this new paper seem to be written by one 8M the same person. There are OT ences of style, no marks of indiVwW The article demands a transforation of "Trud” from top to MM This amounts to a demand tor ging the editorial stall of a MW edited by Mr Kuznetzov, Vigff* dent of the Intcrnatianil ™ e -‘ Attacks on the bureawrtkWg ® the simplification of ® exaggerated dogma are appAlM eV ThIs Controversy implies.a liW’! analysis and criticism which, 11 L lowed to continue and develop, tr. the free expression