On June 28 of this year, at exactly 4:00 PM, accompanied by his wife and Comrade Arosev, Romain Rolland was received by Comrade Stalin.

They greeted each other warmly. Comrade Stalin invited those present to sit down. Romain Rolland thanked Comrade Stalin for affording him the opportunity to speak with him, and expressed special gratitude for the hospitality.

Stalin: I am glad to converse with the world's greatest writer.

Romain Rolland: I greatly regret that my health did not permit me to visit this great new world sooner — a world that is a source of pride for all of us and with which we associate our hopes. If you will permit me, I shall speak with you in my dual capacity — as an old friend and companion of the USSR, and as a witness from the West, an observer and confidant of the youth and the sympathizers in France.

You should know what the USSR represents in the eyes of thousands of people in the West. They have a very vague picture of it, but they see in it the embodiment of their hopes, their ideals — often varying, sometimes contradictory. In the present severe economic and moral crisis, they look to the USSR for guidance, for a watchword, for clarification of their doubts.

Of course, it is difficult to satisfy them. The USSR has its own gigantic task, its work of construction and defense, and to this it must devote itself entirely: the best watchword it can give is its example. It points the way and, by following that way, affirms it.

But still, the USSR cannot decline the great responsibility which the state of the modern world places upon it — a "supreme" responsibility, in a certain sense — to bear concern for these masses from other countries who have placed their faith in it. It is not enough to repeat Beethoven's famous words: "O man, help yourself!" It is necessary to help them and give them counsel.

But to do this usefully, one must take into account the particular temperament and ideology of each country — here I shall speak only of France. Ignorance of this natural ideology can cause, and does cause, serious misunderstandings.

[Rolland speaks about the French temperament, the need for the USSR to explain its actions to foreign friends, citing examples of the Kirov assassination proceedings, the case of Viktor Serge, and the law on punishment of juvenile offenders. He then raises the question of war and the Franco-Soviet military alliance.]

Stalin: If I must answer, then permit me to answer on all points.

First of all, about war. Under what conditions was our agreement with France on mutual assistance concluded? Under conditions in which two systems of states arose in Europe, in the entire capitalist world: a system of fascist states, in which everything living is mechanically suppressed, where the working class and its thought are mechanically stifled, where the working class is not allowed to breathe; and another system of states that survived from former times — the system of bourgeois-democratic states. The latter states would also gladly crush the workers' movement, but they act by other means — they still have parliament, some free press, legal parties, and so forth. Here there is a difference. True, restrictions exist here too, but still a certain freedom remains, and one can more or less breathe. Between these two systems of states, a struggle is occurring on an international scale. And this struggle, as we see, is becoming more and more intense with time. The question is: under such circumstances, should the government of a workers' state remain neutral and not interfere? No, it should not, for to remain neutral means to facilitate the possibility for the fascists to win, and a victory of the fascists is a threat to the cause of peace, a threat to the USSR, and consequently a threat to the world working class as well.

But if the government of the USSR must intervene in this struggle, on whose side should it intervene? Naturally, on the side of the bourgeois-democratic governments, which moreover are not seeking to violate peace. The USSR is therefore interested in France being well armed against possible attacks by fascist states, against aggressors. By intervening in this way, we, as it were, throw an additional weight onto the scale of the struggle between fascism and anti-fascism, between aggression and non-aggression — an additional weight that tips the scales in favor of anti-fascism and non-aggression. This is the basis of our agreement with France.

[Stalin continues with explanations about the difference between the Soviet state's position and that of the French Communist Party, about the legitimacy of political agreements with bourgeois states, about not attempting to lead Western friends from Moscow, and about the difficulty of refuting the constant slanders against the USSR.]

[On the law regarding juvenile offenders:] This decree has a purely pedagogical significance. We wanted to intimidate not so much the hooligan children as the organizers of hooliganism among children. One should bear in mind that in our schools, isolated groups of 10–15 hooligan boys and girls have been discovered who have set themselves the goal of killing or corrupting the best pupils — shock workers. There have been cases when such hooligan groups lured girls to adults, got them drunk, and then made prostitutes of them. There have been cases when boys who study well and are shock workers were drowned in wells by such gangs of hooligans, who inflicted wounds on them and terrorized them in every way. Moreover, it was discovered that such children's hooligan gangs are organized and directed by criminal elements among adults... To this day, there has not been a single case of applying the sharpest articles of this decree to child offenders, and we hope there will not be.

[On the Kirov case and the execution of terrorists:] We would like not to apply the death penalty to criminals in the future, but unfortunately not everything here depends on us. It should also be borne in mind that we have friends not only in Western Europe but also in the USSR, and while our friends in Western Europe recommend maximum leniency toward enemies, our friends in the USSR demand firmness.

[On Viktor Serge:] He is not simply a Trotskyist but a deceiver. He is a dishonest person; he was undermining Soviet power. Viktor Serge now lives in Orenburg freely and, I believe, works there. He was not subjected to any tortures, persecutions, or the like. All of this is nonsense. He is of no use to us, and we can release him to Europe at any moment.

[On humanism and the new man:] Our ultimate goal, the goal of Marxists, is to free people from exploitation and oppression and thereby make the individual free. Capitalism, which enmeshes a person in exploitation, deprives the individual of this freedom. Under capitalism, only individual, the wealthiest persons can become more or less free. The majority of people under capitalism cannot enjoy personal freedom.

Once we remove the fetters of exploitation, we thereby liberate the individual. Engels put it well in Anti-Duhring. There Engels has a splendid expression. It says that the communists, having smashed the chains of exploitation, must make the leap from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom.

Our task is to liberate the individual, to develop their abilities, and to develop in them a love and respect for labor. At present, an entirely new situation is taking shape among us; an entirely new type of person is appearing — a person who respects and loves labor. Among us, idlers and loafers are hated; at the factories, they are wrapped in matting and carted out. Respect for labor, industriousness, creative work, shock work — this is the prevailing tone of our life. Shock workers, men and women — these are the ones who are loved and respected, these are the ones around whom our new life, our new culture, is concentrated.

The conversation was translated by Comrade A. Arosev.

Vestnik. 1996. No. 1. Pp. 142–149.

APRF. F. 45. Op. 1. D. 795. L. 38–54.