bout de papier, Vol. 22, No. 1 (2006) — Spring 2006 // Printemps 2006, pp. 33–37
“I was sent there as an insult — not just to deliver an insult, a mission for a more senior diplomat, but to be one,” John Holmes later recalled of his posting to Moscow as Chargé d’Affaires in 1947. In the wake of the revelations by Igor Gouzenko about Soviet espionage networks operating abroad, relations between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Canada had chilled considerably. The Soviet Ambassador to Canada was recalled and not replaced. In response, the Canadian Ambassador to the USSR, Dana Wilgress, was reassigned. Holmes, most recently Second Secretary in the Canadian High Commission in London, replaced Wilgress. The appointment corresponded with a particularly difficult time in East-West relations. The meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers in Moscow in December 1947 broke up inconclusively amidst mutual hostility. While Holmes was in Russia, the Communist coup took place in Czechoslovakia and the blockade of West Berlin began. The official dispatches and reports of Holmes and his colleagues in the Canadian Embassy provide a fascinating account of life behind the Iron Curtain and
a tentative analysis of Soviet intentions and actions.
In fact, Holmes soon distinguished himself as an acute observer and thoughtful analyst of the USSR’s policies as well as a witty commentator on the regime’s somewhat awkward relationship with Russian history. In the peculiar environment of Moscow, with intermittent and often carefully orchestrated contacts between western diplomats and Soviet leaders, social encounters and anniversary celebrations were subject to close scrutiny for clues as to the relative standing of members of the government as well as signs of the USSR’s attitudes to other countries. The first dispatch reproduced below provides an example of this genre of report, albeit one coloured by the ironic sense of humour of its author. In the second dispatch, Holmes takes advantage of a routine request from headquarters to convey some sense of the peculiar challenges of meeting the social obligations of diplomacy when Canada was deliberately under-represented in the capital of the principal adversary in the Cold War.
Although these dispatches may be found on departmental files in the Library and Archives of Canada, the copies from which transcriptions were made came from the John Holmes Papers at the Archives of Trinity College, University of Toronto, bout de papier expresses its thanks to the Archivist, Henri Pilon, for his help in locating these documents. Where possible, individuals have been identified in square brackets and occasional spelling mistakes have been silently corrected.
Hector Mackenzie
CONFIDENTIAL
Moscow, February 24th, 1948
L.B. Pearson, Esq.,
Under-Secretary of State for External
Affairs,
Ottawa, Canada
Dear Mr. Pearson:
1. Yesterday the 30th anniversary of the formation of the Soviet Army was celebrated in Moscow and elsewhere in the Soviet Union. Some of the decorations used last November for the 30th anniversary of the Revolution were brought out and displayed; the press produced tributes to the glorious Red Army; and yesterday evening a gala celebration was held in the Bolshoi Theatre. To this celebration members of the Diplomatic Corps received invitations – in accordance with Moscow custom only a few hours before the performance was to begin. In spite of this extremely disagreeable habit of the Soviet authorities, there was almost a full attendance of diplomats and correspondents. The United Kingdom Ambassador [Sir Maurice Drummond Peterson] was not present, but the United States Ambassador [General Walter Bedell Smith] turned up for at least a few minutes. The United Kingdom and the United States Service Attachés were invited and attended. The French Ambassador [Yves Chataigneaul stayed throughout the performance – i.e., from seven to twelve o’clock. I mention these attendance statistics, because it was a severe test of the patience and temper of any citizen of the United States, France, or the British Commonwealth to remain throughout an evening during which the provocation was, perhaps, greater than it has been hitherto.
2. For me the principal attraction of the evening was my first view of Generalissimo [losif Vissaronovich] Stalin [Marshal and Generalissimo, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR]. During the first part of the performance Stalin sat on the platform unostentatiously in the second row behind the senior members of the Politburo. For the rest of the performance he occupied a set in a box not far from the “diplomatic gallery” “. The Generalissimo appeared to be in good health. He was certainly not using a cane, and his face was remarkably placid for a man suffering from cancer. He was able, in fact, to make a few impromptu remarks to the cheering crowd – a performance which, I understand, is not usual The Red Army and the Navy were, of course, well represented at this performance, but the principal places were occupied by civilians. In the seats on the platform the military representatives, [Marshal of the USSR Aleksander] Vasilevski, [Marshal of the USSR Ivan Stepanovich] Koney and [Air Chief Marshal Konstantin Andreevich] Vershinin were well to one side, although [Marshal of the USSR Nikolay Alexandrovich] Bulganin as Minister of the Armed Forces Land Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers] and [Kliment Yefremovich] Voroshilov as Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers were more prominently placed. The principal speaker was Marshal Bulganin, who is himself not a professional soldier of many years standing, but a Party member who was put into uniform and rapidly promoted during the War.
• Bulganin in his speech reviewed the history of the Red Army and its present tasks in the terms to be found also in all articles on the Anniversary. Although it is not surprising that Bulganin and the Soviet editors should attribute victory over Germany almost entirely to the Red Army, nevertheless they seem to have gone further than ever before in disparaging the contribution of the allies. As Pravda puts it to-day: “The Anglo-Americans finally opened a second front when Nazi Germany was already virtually in her agonies, and the Soviet Army, having drawn the German Fascist invaders out of the confines of its country, had a chance with its own forces, without the help of the Allies, to occupy all of Germany and liberate all the peoples of Europe”. There is no tendency, either, to underestimate the rôle of the Soviet Army in defeating Japan. In reference to the struggle against imperialism, little distinction is now made between the armed struggle against Germany and Japan and the “cold” struggle against the United States, Britain and France. Bulganin specifically referred to the important rôle of the Red Army in the struggle against “German, British, American and French imperialism”
After the speeches in the Bolshoi Theatre, the audience was given first view of a new Soviet documentary film entitled, “On Guard for Peace” ’. This film reviews the rôle of the Red Army during the Revolution and the Great Patriotic War. It is an interesting and exciting film, most of which is taken from actual newsreel photographs with generous excerpts from the great Soviet historical films like “Chapayer” [made by Sergei and Georgi Vasiliev in 1934]. One would have wished for more photographs of the Civil War and the early days of the USSR but one could only admire the skill with which the producers had collected enough shots of historical scenes featuring acceptable persons like [Vladimir Ilich (Ulyanov)] Lenin [Premier and Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars, 1917-241, Stalin, Voroshilov and [Vyacheslav Mikhailovich] Molotov [Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union], but omitting faded stars like [Leon Davidovich (Lev Davidovich Bronstein)] Trotsky [Commissar for Foreign Affairs, 1917-1918; People’s Commissar of Army and Fleet Affairs and Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council, 1918-251 or [Nikolai Ivanovich] Bukharin [Member of the Politburo, 1924-29; President of the Communist International (Comintern), 1926-291. There was one serious slip, however. One sequence showed [Valery Pavlovich] Chkalov [renowned Soviet test pilot], after his historic flight from Moscow to the United States, being greeted by an unidentified, but obviously friendly, figure whom some at least of the audience recognised to be General [George C.J Marshall [Secretary of State for the United States when Holmes wrote this report]. In watching the film one was constantly torn between admiration of the endurance and heroism of the Soviet people and their Army, and anger at the mean distortion of history. One could perhaps not protest at the emphasis on pictures of [Neville] Chamberlain [Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, 1937-401 and [Édouard] Daladier [Prime Minister of France, 1933, 1934 and 1938-401 signing the Munich Agreement Lof October 1938 which ceded the Czechoslovakian territory of the Sudetenland to Germanyl. The producers, however, went so far as to show an old mother weeping over a dead child in Baku during the time of the “Intervention”, while the announcer said, “[Winston S.] Churchill [Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, 1940- 45 and 1951-55] and Chamberlain were responsible for this”. The notable gaps in the historic record included not only, as one might expect, the whole story of the Molotov-[Joachim von] Ribbentrop [Foreign Minister of Germany, 1938-451 pact, but also the first Finnish war [the “Winter War” of 1939-40]. In general, the argument of the film was as follows. In the first place the Revolution could never have been successful against reactionaries at home or the intervention of foreign imperialists without the Army formed by the people. Unfortunately, because of the continued machinations of the imperialists it had been necessary to maintain this Army after the Civil War. The Army had then almost singled-handed won a victory over German and Japanese imperialism, and had thus saved not only the Soviet Union but the whole world. Now the Red Army was an instrument of peace. The Soviet Union did not want war, but the Army must be kept up to date and given the best of everything so that imperialist aggressors could not attack the Soviet Union. In the concluding sequences of the film (to the rapturous strains of [Sergeil Rachmaninof’s Second Piano Concerto, so popular of late with Hollywood and English film producers), the lovable soldiers of the Red Army were shown being embraced by the grateful citizens of Europe and by their mothers and sisters back home. The emphasis throughout, for whatever purpose, was on the peaceful intentions of the Soviet fighting man.
. In conclusion, I might draw attention to one other notable feature of comments on this Anniversary occasion – the constant reference to the role played by the Communist Party in the successes of the Red Army. In his special Order of the Day, Marshal Bulganin said: “The source of the power of the Soviet Armed Forces is the wise leadership of the Bolshevik Party, the inspirer and organiser of all our victories. The correct economic and military policy of the Party in pre war years prepared all the necessary conditions for the successful conduct of a strained and protracted war. During the years of the War the Party organised and unified the forces of the people, the Army and the Navy, and directed them to the achievement of victory.” In the film which was shown there were as many shots as could possibly be included of Party organisers giving pep talks to the troops and Party leaders inspiring resistance to the enemy in the dark days of 1941. In his speech at the Bolshoi Theatre Marshal Bulganin constantly emphasised that victory was due not just to the perfection of military science, but to socialism. “The victories of the Soviet Armed Forces” “, he said, “are the victories of the Soviet régime over the capitalist régime, of the superiority of the Soviet military organisation over the military organisations of the capitalist countries. The Soviet armed forces were victorious because they were fighting for a truly popular power, because the policy of the Party and the Soviet Government, in whose name the Soviet troops fought, correspond to the interests of the people. Another source of the military achievements of Soviet soldiers and sailors lay in their unlimited devotion to the Soviet Motherland and in their burning hatred of the enemy.”
6. As I mentioned above, the Army had its place in the Bolshoi performance, but it was not the front place. Nevertheless, the civilians in their not very well tailored suits could certainly not compete with the brilliance of the Marshals and Generals in the audience. Goering in all his glory was not arrayed like some of these. A few pertinent questions did formulate in one’s mind, gazing upon these chests bedecked as if for a [Johann] Strauss operetta, while the speakers insisted that the Red Army had never swerved in its devotion to the principles of Lenin. The Marshals and Generals I observed to be lukewarm in their applause for the speakers who hurled Party slogans at them. Many of them did not trouble to clap at all. Rather than attribute this phenomenon to dissatisfaction, however, I should be inclined to think that the fighting men were probably just bored by having to listen to speeches.
77. In conclusion, I might add that the reversion to emphasis on Russian patriotism, encouraged during the War but discouraged after it, which I have mentioned in previous communications, was notable during the Anniversary celebrations. A further exhibit is a series of posters which have just been issued. One of these, under a heading “Our Great Ancestors”, displays pictures of [Saint] Alexander Nevsky [Grand Prince of Novgorod and Vladimir in 13th centuryl, [Saint] Dmitri [Ivanovich] Donskoy [Grand Duke of Muscovy and Vladimir in 14th centuryl, Kuzma [Minich] Minin [Russian patriot and military leader in early 17th centuryl, Dmitri [Mikhaylovich] Pozharsky [Rurikid prince and military leader in early 17th centuryl, “Generalissimo” [Alexander Vasilyevich] Suvorov [Count Suvorov of Rymnik, 18th century Russian general, and Field Marshal [Prince Mikhail Illarionovich Golenischev-] Kutuzov [late 18th and early 19th century commander credited with saving Russia from Napoleon] with patriotic quotations from each. These are the military heroes who defended the Russian soil against Swedes, Poles, Tartars, Prussians, Turks and Frenchmen. The theme of all the quotations is that it is glorious to sacrifice everything rather than allow an invader on the holy soil of the Fatherland.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) J. W. Holmes
Chargé d’Affaires a.i.
Moscow, July 7th, 1948
No. 264
The Right Honourable
The Secretary of State for External
Affairs,
Ottawa, Canada.
Sir:
I. I have the honour to refer to your Circular Document B. 101 of June 8th concerning the observance of Canada’s national holiday, and to respond to your request for information concerning the observance of July Ist in this Embassy.
2. You will not be surprised to learn that the occasion was not noted by Pravda or Radio Moscow, and we are unable, therefore, to send clippings or reports of broadcasts. It might be worth noting, however, one false alarm. At this Embassy we work and sleep to the strains, almost twenty-four hours a day, of very loud-speaking radios in the neighbouring apartment buildings. Accustomed as we are to hearing virtually nothing except the IPyotor (Peter) Ilyich] Ischaikovsky violin concerto and speeches on dialectical materialism for the young Komsomol Iyouth wing of the Communist Party of the USSAI, it was with amazement that on the morning of July Ist we heard the strains of “The Maple Leaf” It was only after some search that we discovered, however, that the noise came from the powerful radio of the Air Attaché’s clerks, who had picked up a C.B.C. broadcast and decided that a chance had at last come to take counter measures against our neighbours.
3. In accordance with arrangements agreed upon in correspondence with Mr. [W. D.J Matthews [Assistant Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs (Administration)], it was decided this year to hold a cocktail party instead of the soirée which had taken place last year. The custom in Moscow has in the past been for missions to hold elaborate and expensive evening parties at which too much food and too much drink was served to people who drink and eat too much. this year, however, since the currency reforms and perhaps also because of increasing international tension, entertainment has been less elaborate. Several of the missions held no receptions at all on their national days. The United Kingdom, United States, Argentina, and other countries have continued entertaining in the usual way. However, the Australians and the Swedes set an example of holding only cocktail parties. This happens, furthermore, to be the season in which the Diplomatic Corps is oppressed by too many large receptions, and most members are not inclined to welcome heavy entertainment. On the whole, therefore, I feel quite certain that the dignity of Canada did not suffer from our holding a cocktail party. If an Ambassador had been present the situation might have been different, but entertainment on a less lavish scale seems appropriate to a Chargé d’Affaires. An additional advantage, which I have described in my letter to Mr. Matthews, is that our entertainment this year cost us $515, mostly in Canadian funds, whereas the entertainment last year cost about 34,000 roubles, which is now worth $4,000 U.S. dollars. This difference in cost was to a considerable extent accounted for by the fact that, whereas last year the Embassy was forced to buy all its supplies in Moscow, this year the Department sent us food from Canada and drink from England.
Invitations to the reception were sent to about three hundred people. We invited the heads of all diplomatic missions and in most cases the second in command as well as senior Service Attachés. In addition we invited all the diplomatic officers of the United Kingdom, Australian, New Zealand, Indian and United States missions. We also asked the great majority of the members of the Netherlands, French, Belgian and Scandinavian missions. This year the invitations to Soviet citizens were drastically reduced. It has been the Moscow custom to invite large numbers of Russians, most of whom never respond. This year we invited only those who had come last year, or who, because of their official positions, should be asked. Out of a total of about thirty, not more than seven turned up. This was a considerably smaller number than attended last year. Except for General Seraev of the Ministry of Armed Forces, no senior Russian appeared. Mr. [Valery (Valerian) Alexandrovich] Zorin, one of the Deputy Ministers, might have been expected to attend, but he is believed to be out of Moscow. He did not attend the United States’ Ambassador’s reception last evening, but another Deputy Minister, Mr. [Fedor Tarasovich (Gusyev)] Gusev [Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union], did come. Both Mr. Zorin and Mr. LAndrey Yandaryevich] Vyshinski [First Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union] had attended the United Kingdom Ambassador’s reception last month, but Mr. Vyshinski was not present at the American reception. Whether the falling off in Soviet attendance was due to a deterioration of relations, or the fact that the party this year was less formal, is hard to say. To compensate for the Russians we had a very full attendance of representatives from satellite countries. A centre of interest at the party was the Yugoslav Charge d’Affaires, making his first public appearance since the Cominform’s latest communiqué [published in Pravda on 29 June 1948, on the Conference of the Information Bureau of the Communist Parties in Bucharest, it challenged the policy of the Communist Party of Yugoslavial. The curious thing about the Chargé d’Affaires’ behaviour was that he behaved almost exactly as he was expected to behave — in other words, he kept almost entirely to himself, an attitude which he maintained again yesterday at General Bedell Smith’s reception.
5. We had fortunately won a long and nerve wracking battle with Burobin [Central Bureau for Services to Foreigners in Moscow], who had started redecorating the Chancery building about April Ist and managed to finish about two days before the guests were to arrive. On the departure of Burobin the servants set about preparing the Ambassador’s quarters for the festivities with such enthusiasm that they succeeded in pulling a large chandelier down on a freshly unpacked load of glass from Antwerp. The fact that we were ready for the guests on July Ist and that the Embassy looked extremely handsome, was due not only to Burobin but to the indefatigable efforts of my colleagues, in particular of Mrs. [Mary Ann] Phillips [wife of the Third Secretary, Robert A. J. Phillips] and Miss Nottingham, who acted as Housekeepers-in-Chief. All the guests said that it was a lovely party. They would have said so regardless of what had happened, but there are some reasons to believe that most of them meant what they said. There are few Embassies in Moscow which have more attractive quarters or better facilities for an entertainment of this kind. Consequently, with the careful preparations by members of the staff of the food and drink and the décor, together with a sunny but not too hot day, success was guaranteed
I have the honour to be,
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) J. W. Holmes
Chargé d’Affaires a.l.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 22, No. 1 (2006) — Spring 2006 // Printemps 2006, pp. 33–37. Read the rest of this issue →
