A conversation between Guo Moruo, Soong Ching-ling and Stalin

In the 1950s, China and the Soviet Union established a strategic relationship of friendship, alliance and mutual assistance, and exchanges between the two countries at all levels were carried out. In those days, many Chinese experts and scholars had the opportunity to communicate with their Soviet counterparts and even Soviet leaders. However, there were not many Chinese experts who had contact with the top soviet leaders, especially Stalin, to discuss academic issues and political strategies.

From 12 to 20 December 1952, the World Peace Council held the World People's Peace Congress in Vienna, the capital of Austria. Nearly 2,000 people from 85 countries attended the event. The Assembly was chaired by the President of the World Peace Council, the French scientist Joliot Curie. The Chinese government sent a 108-member delegation headed by Song Qingling and deputy headed by Guo Moruo. Joliot Curie and Song Qingling also served as Executive Chairmen of the Conference. After the meeting, at the invitation of the Soviet Cultural Association, Song Qingling and Guo Moruo led the Chinese delegation to visit Moscow for several days. On January 13, 1953, Stalin met with Soong Ching Ling and Guo Moruo in Moscow. This was Stalin's last meeting with a Chinese guest before his death.

During the talks, Stalin raised only a number of questions about China's national conditions to Soong Ching Ling and Guo Moruo: the improvement of peasants' lives, women's participation in work, the satisfaction of intellectuals with the status quo, the popularity of primary education, the increase in the number of universities, and the language situation (such as the characteristics of the Chinese language, learning methods and reforms). Song Qingling and Guo Moruo answered these questions in a slight or detailed manner. Guo Moruo told Stalin that China had abolished the Anglo-American university system, learned from the Soviet experience, adjusted its faculties, and added specialized colleges. From time to time, Stalin introduced the experience of the Soviet Union and made suggestions for improving the work.

As president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, historian and social activist, Guo Moruo asked Stalin several questions. The first question concerned the criteria for the division of stages of social development and the distinction between slaves who cultivated the fields and serfs in feudalism. Stalin explained the difference between slavery and serfdom, stressing that the study of social institutions should be studied as a pure social state. Guo Moruo raised this question because Chinese academics were highly controversial about the beginning of China's feudal society. As early as 1930, Guo Moruo published a book called "Research on Ancient Chinese Society", arguing that there was a social form of slavery in ancient China. In February 1952, he published the book "The Age of Slavery", which discussed the lower limit of Chinese slavery society at the turn of the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States.

Guo Moruo once learned from a Soviet historian that the Central Asian peoples of the Soviet Union went directly from the primitive commune system to serfdom. He asked Stalin in person: Can society develop by leaps and bounds? Stalin replied: "Yes", illustrating by example. Guo Moruo believes that Stalin's words are a good supplement to Marx's theory.

Stalin, as the teacher of the revolution, appeared condescending during the talks. For example, after listening to Soong Ching Ling's explanation of the changes in China, he said: "I am not expecting such an answer. When Guo Moruo talked about respecting the demand for national independence in the peace movement, Stalin repeatedly stressed that "it is not good", and the tone of Guo Moruo's conversation was like: "Do you understand this truth?" "Do you understand what that means?"

Guo Moruo revealed to Stalin that Joliot Curie said that if the deterioration of the situation in France prevented him from continuing to operate there, he would want to go to China. In this way, he can both help China study science and lead the peace movement. Hearing the news, Stalin "put the pencil aside for a while[ and then continued to draw on paper", raising his voice to express his opposition to Curie's departure from his homeland and his "flight" to China. He believed that even if the situation in France became worse, Curie should pursue a peace movement in his homeland, even imprisoning him for more than a decade, like the founder of the Japanese Communist Party, Tokuda Koichi (1894-1953). In this way, Stalin seems to have demanded Curry according to the political hero of a peace movement.

In fact, Marie Curie's son-in-law, Jolio Curie, is first and foremost a scientist and then a social activist. As the second generation of the Curies, he and his wife studied nuclear physics together, winning the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1935 and leading the construction of France's first atomic reactor in 1948. Chinese scientists Qian Sanqiang and He Zehui have done excellent research work in their laboratories. The Curies helped China buy books, instruments and other precious items for the study of atomic energy, and in 1951 assisted Chinese to bring them out of France.

In the 1950s, the Chinese government hoped to receive Soviet assistance in the fields of science and technology, industry, education, and the military. In the early 1950s, the Soviet Union began to transfer industrial technology to China on a large scale and exchanged scientific exchanges with China, but it was very cautious in providing cutting-edge technology. So can we speculate that Stalin did not want the top Western scientists, especially nuclear physicists, to come to China to help Chinese carry out cutting-edge research? Of course, this speculation still needs to be supported by historical data.

In order to study Soviet scientific and technological cooperation, when we consulted some historical archives of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, we stumbled upon "Conversation with Comrade Stalin" dictated by Guo Moruo and recorded by Liao Gailong on January 27, 1953. This file tells us that on January 13, 1953, between 10:00 p.m. and 11:50 p.m., Stalin met with Soong Ching-ling and Guo Moruo, who translated them as a Soviet sinologist and diplomat Federlin. The transcript is now collated for the reference of relevant researchers.

Transcript of the conversation between Guo Moruo, Soong Ching Ling, and Stalin

January 13, 1953

On January 13, 1953, Mr. Soong Ching Ling and I went to [Jin] to meet Comrade Stalin. The meeting began at 10 p.m. and ended at around 11:50 p.m. The conversation was translated by Comrade Federline.

Mr. Soong Ching Ling first gave Comrade Stalin a gift – an exquisite ivory carving. Comrade Stalin said "thank you." Then sit down and start talking. Comrade Stalin drew and wrote on paper with a blue pencil while talking. Comrade Stalin's health was good, his attitude was serene, and his voice was calm. Here's an overview of the conversation.

Stalin (asked Soong Ching-ling): The situation in China has changed a lot, what do you think?

Soong Ching Ling: Yes, the situation in China has changed a lot because of the victory of the revolution. Thank you Comrade Stalin for your help to us.

Stalin: I was not expecting such an answer.

Chinese is a good man, very simple, very diligent. The imperialists want to turn Chinese into bad people, but they are too late to do so.

The culture of a nation is very important. The enemy can turn people of a nation into bad people, but it cannot make its culture deteriorate.

What is the situation with Chinese farmers? Has their lives improved a lot?

Soong Ching Ling: Yes, the lives of peasants have generally improved a lot; recently there has been a speed literacy method, and they are learning culture in general.

Stalin: What is the situation with women in China? Are they already working (working) in the same way as men?

Soong Ching-ling: Yes, women in China have been liberated, and many of them have joined the workforce like men.

Stalin: Women's ability to work is very strong. In the Soviet Union, women and men did the same work. Chinese women should be liberated from the kitchen and from the family.

What is the situation with Chinese intellectuals? Are there still people who are not satisfied with the status quo?

Soong Ching-ling: Very few Chinese intellectuals are dissatisfied with the status quo.

Stalin: In China, has primary education been popularized?

(Song Qingling looks at Guo Moruo)

Guo Moruo: It is not yet possible to popularize primary education, but the school system has been changed to a five-year consistent system. There are still many difficulties in implementing compulsory primary education, with difficulties in funding, insufficient number of teachers and low quality.

Stalin: There are not enough teachers, so we can run more normal schools. Don't be too high.

Guo Moruo: Yes, we are doing this, and we are holding more normal schools at all levels. There is a tendency among young people in China today that they do not want to learn teacher training.

Stalin: Do they all want to be philosophers?

Guo Moruo: Not exactly. Most people feel that economic construction is important and want to learn gongye [karma].

Stalin: That's good. But you should also encourage many of them to learn teachers and send them material help.

Guo Moruo: Yes, we are doing this. Students at the normal school are free of charge. Generally speaking, the training and construction of cadres is the central task of our cultural and educational work, and we are vigorously carrying out it.

Stalin: Have your universities increased?

Guo Moruo: Our university system has undergone great changes, learned from the experience of the Soviet Union, abolished the Anglo-American university system, and implemented the adjustment of faculties and departments. As a result, the number of integrated universities has decreased, but the number of specialized colleges has increased, while the number of university students has increased considerably.

Stalin: Is it difficult to learn Chinese characters? What are you going to do to solve this difficulty?

Guo Moruo: Yes, there are difficulties. The policy for solving this difficulty has been determined, that is, to gradually adopt the method of pinyin to reform the Chinese script.

Stalin: We children of the Soviet Union can read books after three weeks of study, learn the Russian alphabet and pinyin method;

Guo Moruo: We can't. Often after three years of study, I am still not able to read books. It is indeed difficult to learn Chinese characters.

Stalin: The minorities of the Soviet Union originally had their own script. For example, some peoples use Arabic, which is very inconvenient; some do not have their own national script. We wanted to promote Latinization, but it was not popular. Later, the use of the Russian alphabet took almost ten years of work, and the result was success. At present, the cultural level of all ethnic groups has improved.

You also have many ethnic minorities, how are you doing?

Guo Moruo: Reforming or creating writing for ethnic minorities is another important thing in our cultural and educational work. We haven't let it go at the moment. It's just that experimental work has been done in some places. For example, we developed a script for the Xikang Yi people that was pinyin in the Latin alphabet, and the results were very popular.

Stalin: Oh, that's good.

Guo Moruo: However, it is very difficult to latinize Chinese characters.

Stalin: How' about that? Are you reluctant to throw away the Chinese characters?

Guo Moruo: Reluctance to throw it away is one reason. But in fact there are great difficulties. Our history is long, and the cultural classics left over thousands of years are written in Chinese characters. At present, the decrees of the state state all books and newspapers are written in Chinese characters. Scrap it immediately, and it will cause a lot of fluctuations. In such a situation, it is useless to learn The Latinized script; unless the books and reports are both two sets, both Chinese characters and Latin characters.

Stalin: Of course that's very difficult to do. What is the language situation in China?

Guo Moruo: The Chinese language is very complicated. In addition to the language of ethnic minorities, there are many different dialects of the Han people alone, and the large dialect system can be divided into four districts.

Stalin: Are the grammatical structures and basic vocabulary of these dialects very different?

Guo Moruo: No. The grammar structure and basic vocabulary of the various dialects of the Han nationality are consistent, so the language of the Han nationality is a language, but because of its long history, vast region, inconvenient transportation, and also affected by foreign languages, the pronunciation changes so much that they cannot understand each other at all. In this case, the use of Chinese characters is beneficial, because although the language is not understood, the characters can be understood, because the Chinese characters are unified.

Stalin: That's just your intellectuals, and don't the peasants even understand the words?

Guo Moruo: Recently, the situation has changed a bit. In order to help people learn Chinese characters, we recently adopted a kind of accelerated literacy method: using Zhuyin alphabet and pinyin to help with learning, and at the same time selected a commonly used word, about 1,500 to 2,000 words, for the illiterate to learn. ......

Stalin: Two thousand words is enough.

Guo Moruo: In addition, it is also appropriate to simplify the text stroke [painting]. We feel that these methods are indeed a more convenient way to eradicate illiteracy. Now, among the soldiers, illiteracy has been largely eliminated; the illiteracy among the workers and peasants will be gradually eliminated.

Stalin: All right. That's all I want to ask. Do you have any questions for me? Please bring it up.

Soong Ching Ling: I have no questions for Comrade Stalin.

Guo Moruo: I have a few questions, are you allowing me to ask Comrade Stalin?

Stalin: Of course, please.

Guo Moruo: Recently I read your book "The Economic Problems of Socialism in the Soviet Union", which said [of] "The foundation of feudalism ... It is a feudal land ownership system." I think this hint not only shows the essence of feudalism, but also seems to be a criterion for dividing the stages of social development. I raise this question because in China there is a great debate about the stage division of social development. In particular, different scholars have different opinions on the question of when China's feudal society began, and the difference between them has reached more than a thousand years. There is a difficult problem, that is, the slaves who cultivate the fields and the serfs of the feudal system are often easily confused and cannot be distinguished.

Stalin: The forms of land ownership are indeed different at various stages of social development. But the study of the difference between slavery and serfdom depends on the nature of slavery: under slavery, the production worker was the slave who could be bought and sold as livestock by the slave owner and slaughtered; under the feudal serf system, the production worker was the serf whose feudal master could no longer slaughter, but could still be bought and sold.

The study of social institutions should be the study of purely social states, not the state of change. Research questions should be based on actual circumstances and should not mechanically explain them only on the basis of documents or books.

Recently I read articles by some "theorists" in Indonesia. According to these "theorists", there is no feudal system in Indonesia now, because indonesia's constitution stipulates that land belongs to the state, so there are no feudal landlords in Indonesia. You see: What is this "theory"? This is nothing more than the theory of the apologist. In fact, the reason why they say that Indonesia does not have a feudal system is because they are afraid of implementing land reform in Indonesia.

Guo Moruo: In terms of the stage of social development, I would also like to ask a question: Can social development develop by leaps and bounds?

Stalin: Yes. It depends. For example, if a nation, whose neighbours, another nation, are progressive, then, under the strong influence of its neighbours, the nation can leapfrog a certain stage of society and develop. This was the case, for example, of many minorities in the Soviet Union.

(Note: I know [I] raise this question because a Soviet historian said that the peoples of Central Asia and Asia Minor in the Soviet Union, from the primitive commune system, entered directly into serfdom and crossed the stage of slave society. But since I have not studied the history of the peoples of Central Asia Minor, I have not asked Comrade Stalin any further. But I think that Comrade Stalin's words are a good supplement to Marx's doctrine. Marx said: The stage of social development cannot be jumped, that is the general situation without external influence; but under the strong influence of foreign influence, it turns out that it is possible to jump. ）

Guo Moruo: I am working on the peace movement. I feel that there is a delicate relationship between the peace movement and the national independence movement. In the struggle for national independence, it is difficult to propagate peace, because it is easy to hinder the mobilization of war. We therefore feel that in the peace movement, the question of national independence is given due consideration, so as not to cause the two movements to be opposed to each other. That is why, at the Regional Peace Conference in Asia and the Pacific, we adopted resolutions on respect for national independence. Friends in England and France at the time thought that our demands were a little too high. But this time, at the World People's Peace Congress in Vienna, the question of respect for national independence was once again raised and adopted. This shows that it is necessary to properly demand respect for national independence in the peace movement.

Stalin: No, that's not good. A peace movement should be a peace movement, and its purpose is only one, that is, to maintain peace, and the demand for national independence should not be added to it. The scope of our peace movement should be broad[ broad]. If we add to the demand for national independence, people will say that our demand for peace is not sincere. In this way, some people will not come to participate in the peace movement. Do you understand the truth in this word?

Guo Moruo: I understand [reason] in this Tao. But I think that by now, the demand for national independence seems to be less sharply antagonistic between colonial and colonial powers. Because the war policy of the United States not only infringes on the independent sovereignty of colonial, semi-colonial and other dependent countries, but also infringes on the independent sovereignty of colonial countries such as Britain and France. Therefore, the people of Britain, France and other countries are demanding respect for independent sovereignty. It seems possible to raise it appropriately today.

Stalin: Not good. A peace movement should be a peace movement. The main targets of this movement are those countries that are in danger of waging war, such as the United States, Great Britain, France, and so on. The aim of this movement is to win over a wide range of people from these countries to join our movement, even the capitalists, in order to isolate the war instigators. This end will not be achieved if the demand for national independence is raised in the peace movement.

Guo Moruo: Should we also take care of regional differences? In Asia, for example, most countries have strong demands for national independence, and should they be accommodated in order to carry out the peace movement smoothly? (I also cited the fact that the delegations of Korea and Viet Nam, at the recent World Peace Conference in Vienna, were dissatisfied with the fact that the General Assembly had not included in its declaration a solution to the prisoner-of-war problem and a call for the withdrawal of foreign troops. ）

Stalin: Not good. Don't mix the two things together. The work of national independence must be done separately. Do you understand what this means?

Guo Moruo: I understand Comrade Stalin's meaning. I have one more thing I would like to ask Comrade Stalin's opinion on, which I have already raised with Comrade Fadeyev. The problem is this: Joliot Curie has expressed his desire to go to China if the situation in France deteriorates so much that it is impossible for him to operate in France. In this way, he can help China study science on the one hand, and still lead the peace movement on the other. What is Comrade Stalin's opinion on this matter?

Stalin: (I put the pencil aside for a while, and then went on drawing on the paper, in a higher tone): The French friend is too emotional. The situation in France will not change as it is, as good as it says. Even if the situation had gotten worse, why did he consider leaving his homeland so easily? He should follow the example of Comrade Tokuda Koichi of Japan, who worked in his homeland and spent more than a decade in prison. What's so bad about him doing the peace movement? If the French government wants to arrest, let it arrest. If you want to go to jail, go to jail. I think it will not take more than a decade for France to be liberated. He should also follow the example of a French girl who lay on railroad tracks to prevent the French government from transporting arms to Vietnam to massacre the Vietnamese people. What's so bad about him being a national hero? If I were Joliot Curie, I would never have left my homeland easily, no matter how harsh the circumstances were.

You should not persuade him to flee.

Song Qingling: It's very late, and we should say goodbye.

Stalin: Don't worry, it will take years to meet once. Oh, not just a few years.

SOONG: Yes, I met Comrade Stalin in 1927. Do Comrade Stalin remember?

Stalin: How can we not remember that we did not meet at the home of Comrade Kalinin? You see, we're going to see each other once in twenty-five years.

Soong Ching-ling: I have never forgotten Comrade Stalin's instructions on that occasion. At that time I asked Comrade Stalin: What work should I do when I return to China? Comrade Stalin said: You should do all the work you can.

However, we are afraid that Comrade Stalin will be too tired.

Stalin: It is not so easy for you to fatigue me.

Guo Moruo: Your time is very precious [the word "can" is superfluous].

Stalin: It makes sense for us to talk like this. However, you must say goodbye, that is also OK. So, let's talk about it next time.

Guo Moruo: Mr. Soong Ching Ling decided to leave Moscow by train tomorrow to return to China; I decided to fly back.

Stalin: Oh, is it going that fast? I was going to invite you to dinner, but it was too late.

Comrade Federlin, tell them to hang a special carriage for Mr. Song Qingling.

At this point in the conversation, we left. In the nearly two-hour conversation, Comrade Stalin drew three and a half pieces of paper.

(Transcript by Liao Gailong, Guo Moruo.) January 27)

(The original manuscript was titled "Conversation with Comrade Stalin," which Guo Moruo dictated.) The text in square brackets is a note added by the finisher Zhang Baichun. ）

Friends who like this article can pay attention to my WeChat public account "Ancient Stories", which has more articles to share with everyone!

"Disclaimer: This article is reproduced from the Internet. The copyright of the graphic belongs to the original author, if there is any infringement, please contact to delete』